[Oe List ...] Some thoughts about faith

[jlepps at pc.jaring.my]

Thanks Jim

Probably not, especially if you take "faith" 
broadly to mean one's underlying assumptions about the meaning of life.

A note: Albert Schweitzer's "Quest for the 
Historical Jesus" was a history of writings about 
the life of Jesus. He showed that each of the 
writings revealed more about the author's life 
than about the life of Jesus. Apparently writing 
history is no piece of cake. Even those who 
attempt an "objective" history of "the way it 
really happened" find their own presuppositions 
relentlessly invading their work. Bultmann in "Is 
Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?" was 
another who pointed out that neutral history is beyond us.

Faith has a way of getting itself expressed.

John

At 01:09 AM 4/12/2012, you wrote:
>Thanks, John.
>
>So, is there, actually any historical writing 
>that is NOT an expression of the faith of the community or author?
>
>Jim Wiegel
>
>Many have tried to define creativity, to 
>quantify and qualify it . . .  Some say it 
>involves imagination;  Whatever your definition 
>of creativity or the creative process, marvelous 
>creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center
>
>401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
>+1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel
>jfwiegel at yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com
>
>Upcoming public course opportunities:
>ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012
>ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012
>The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012
>Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the 
>Technology of Participation program is available 
>in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 
>22-24, 2012. See website for further details.
>AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses
>
>--- On Wed, 4/11/12, Jack Gilles <icabombay at igc.org> wrote:
>
>From: Jack Gilles <icabombay at igc.org>
>Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Some thoughts about faith
>To: "Order Ecumenical Community" <oe at wedgeblade.net>
>Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 9:11 PM
>
>John,
>
>Wonderful writing John.  Your capacity to have a 
>focus and yet fill in the critical space around 
>it is amazing.  Your categories are spot on and 
>I really appreciate your "yes" to those of Faith 
>who still hold mythic literalism but are people 
>of compassion (humility and gratitude) is very 
>insightful.  All in all you've done a great job 
>and a great service.  If I have some more 
>reflections I'll share those with you later, but 
>as of now I just enjoy your writing.
>
>Thank you so much.
>
>Peace,
>
>Jack
>On Apr 11, 2012, at 1:50 AM, jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:
>
>>Below are some thoughts about faith. Parts may 
>>be pretty obscure, but hopefully you can wade 
>>through it. It's sort of what theologians do in 
>>spare time! :-) I'd welcome comments.
>>
>>
>>Faith
>>April 2012
>>
>>I’ve met two people recently who have changed 
>>my view of the role of theology and faith. Both 
>>people were (as far as can be determined by an 
>>outsider) persons of faith. Both were also 
>>theological fundamentalists. That set me 
>>thinking. I’ve previously tended to regard 
>>theological fundamentalists as somewhat slow 
>>intellectually with a tendency towards 
>>fanaticism and a generally obnoxious 
>>personality. These two people were 
>>exceptionally bright (one, an engineer, and the 
>>other, an artist) sensitive people who manifest 
>>humility, gratitude, and compassion. They were 
>>people of faith, so far as any outsider can 
>>judge another’s interior posture. Meeting 
>>these people has set me thinking about faith.
>>
>>By “faith,” I am referring to the basic 
>>internal stance of a person. Normally the term 
>>is used in terms of religious affiliation or 
>>belief, but this is one possible sub-set of the 
>>term. Everyone is a person of faith: it’s the 
>>type of faith that matters: whether it’s 
>>life-affirming or life-denying. So how would I 
>>define “authentic faith?” Something like 
>>unmitigated appreciation of life, just the way 
>>it is with all its responsibilities and 
>>occasions for suffering, and a personal stance 
>>of humility, gratitude, and compassion. 
>>There’s nothing particularly “spiritual” 
>>about faith, and it does not depend on 
>>ascending a growth curve of spiritual maturity. 
>>Such a curve may exist, but the issue of faith 
>>occurs at all levels, not simply at the top.
>>
>>Here I am assuming that faith is universal, at 
>>least to some extent, though it is often 
>>obscured by illusion, denial, or pretense. 
>>Arguably, no one lives without some degree of 
>>confidence in life. I do not intend to argue that case here.
>>
>>This is an attempt to sort out the dynamics or 
>>functions of faith. There are three:
>>1. Faith seeks understanding; 2. Faith seeks 
>>action; 3. Faith seeks expression. These 
>>dynamics or functions roughly correspond to knowing, doing, and being.
>>
>>1. Faith seeks understanding. One mode of 
>>theology understands itself as carrying out 
>>this function. It was the approach to theology 
>>of St. Anselm whose theme was “Fides Quarens 
>>Intellectum.” In this approach the person of 
>>faith attempts to provide a rational 
>>explanation of her/his basic life perspective. 
>>That perspective is assumed, and the role of 
>>the explanation is to make it intelligible to 
>>others. It is not so much to convince the other 
>>as to make sense of one’s stance, both to 
>>oneself and to another. The starting point in 
>>this approach to theology is the faith which is 
>>believed (fides quae creditur) and the one 
>>doing the explaining (fides qua creditur) is 
>>assumed to be operating from that faith.
>>
>>One’s basic life-stance (faith) raises 
>>persistent questions for many. Is life really 
>>worthwhile? What’s the meaning of it all? How 
>>can you affirm life with all the innocent 
>>suffering? Or as a comedian put it, "How is it 
>>possible to find meaning in a finite world, 
>>given my waist and shirt size?" (Woody Allen) 
>>These questions are the drivers behind the quest of faith for understanding.
>>
>>Clearly faith is more important than one’s 
>>theological understanding of it. In fact, one 
>>could say that our vaunted RS-1 was not a 
>>course on theology, but a course on faith. The 
>>first lecture, which we sometimes termed “The 
>>God Lecture,” was correctly dubbed “The 
>>Question of God Lecture,” and it was an 
>>attempt to raise the question of faith for 
>>participants. The rest of the course attempted 
>>to address that question without ever directly 
>>addressing the theological question of “What 
>>verifiable not-me-ness do we point to with the 
>>word ‘G-O-D’?” And we never got into the 
>>questions about the historical Jesus, the 
>>doctrines of incarnation, atonement, 
>>soteriology, and other theological quandaries. 
>>We dug in on the question of how one relates to 
>>one’s given situation, the issue of faith.
>>
>>There is another mode of theology which does 
>>not necessarily presuppose the presence of the 
>>faith which is being explained: I call this 
>>understanding seeking faith, and it’s quite 
>>possible that RS-1 addressed that issue as 
>>well. Many people seem to be looking for a 
>>deeper sense of meaning in life, but are turned 
>>off by the expressions of faith promoted by 
>>institutional religion. While concentrating on 
>>faith, RS-1 used expressions that “make 
>>sense” in the contemporary world view.
>>
>>So how does one determine the validity of 
>>theology? It is valid when it provides a 
>>rational understanding of faith in terms that 
>>are appropriate to the world view of the 
>>believer. Christian theology has another 
>>dimension: integrity. The explanation must not 
>>only be appropriate, it must also accord with 
>>the faith expressed in the scripture and 
>>traditions of Christianity. This does not mean 
>>it has to repeat them since they are 
>>expressions, not explanations. But it must 
>>translate them into an understandable 
>>statement, not add to or subtract from them.
>>
>>Clearly, not every person of faith engages in 
>>theological discussion. The drive for 
>>understanding is secondary to the presence of 
>>faith. While theological understanding may make 
>>faith palatable to one’s intellect, not 
>>everyone is driven in that direction. There is 
>>more to life than intellect. Faith seeks 
>>understanding, but sometimes that understanding is easily satisfied.
>>
>>2. Faith seeks action. I am told by Chinese and 
>>Korean theologians[1] that this is the primary 
>>mode of communicating faith in the East. 
>>Apparently people in this part of the world are 
>>more impressed by what one does than by what 
>>one says, though “actions speak louder than 
>>words” is a familiar expression in the West. 
>>More important is the awareness that one’s 
>>actions communicate one’s interior stance 
>>towards life, whether it be one of rejection or 
>>compassion or avoidance or responsibility or 
>>any of the myriad alternative perspective on life one may hold.
>>
>>Humility, gratitude and compassion demand 
>>embodiment in action. Arguments over the role 
>>of action in faith have been with us from the 
>>beginning. Whether actions produce faith or are 
>>produced by faith is a perpetual puzzle to 
>>theologians. The classical issue is faith vs. 
>>works in producing salvation. Clearly, “faith 
>>without works is dead,” (James 2:20) but good 
>>works may or may not give reliable evidence of 
>>faith. “Though I speak with tongues of men 
>>and of angles, have not love
tthough I give all 
>>my goods to the poor and my body to be burned, 
>>have not love
” (1 Cor. 13). St. James and 
>>St. Paul each had diffeerent ideas about which is primary.
>>
>>There seems to be no immediate correlation 
>>between good works and faithful people. This is 
>>partly because of the nature of works – 
>>actions. There simply are no unambiiguous 
>>actions. Our network of responsibility is so 
>>extensive that any action violates some relationship.
>>
>>Still, faith shows up in action, ambiguous 
>>though it be. Whether one can actually work 
>>oneself into a state of faith is doubtful, at 
>>least to Protestants. But participating in 
>>charitable actions does have a powerful impact 
>>on one’s outlook. And participating in 
>>harmful actions also impacts one’s interior 
>>perspective. So while the approach of using 
>>action to generate faith is dubious, faith’s 
>>role in generating action is not. One’s 
>>actions, whatever they are, manifest one’s 
>>interior perspective. If that perspective is 
>>one of humility, gratitude, and compassion, it 
>>shows up in what one does. One may choose not 
>>to parade one’s faith openly, but still it 
>>shows up in one’s actions as their underlying motivation.
>>
>>3. Faith seeks expression. Faith seeks 
>>expression through rituals, liturgy, creeds, 
>>scriptures, music, art, drama, worship, and 
>>other media that attempt to express what is 
>>intrinsically inexpressible – faith.
>>
>>The language of faith, then, iss not 
>>particularly rational; it’s poetic, filled 
>>with imagery that touches the heart. Faith is 
>>the basic content of myths, rites, and stories 
>>of legendary figures, told to express, not 
>>factual history, but interior stances – values, attitudes, and outlooks.
>>
>>A momenttous error occurs when one takes the 
>>expressions of faith literally or rationally as 
>>if they were explanations. Unfortunately many 
>>have taken the expressions of faith and then 
>>required literal, rational “belief” in them 
>>as the content of faith. This amounts to a 
>>willing suspension of disbelief, which may be 
>>appropriate to fiction, but is not, either to 
>>theology or to ritual. Many participants in 
>>RS-1 courses were shocked when we practiced the 
>>Daily Office with its full array of symbols and 
>>myths which we had been demythologizing 
>>(explaining) in the seminars. But rituals are 
>>not intended to produce understanding; they aim 
>>to express and dramatize faith, and so reinforce it at a subliminal level.
>>
>>Isn’t it possible, though, to express the 
>>faith in rituals using terms more appropriate 
>>to the world view of today? Well, in principle 
>>it’s possible, though I have not found any 
>>expressions that quite do the job. There’s a 
>>difference between expression and rationalization. For example, take Hamlet:
>>
>>“To be, or not to be: that is the question:
>>Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
>>The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
>>Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
>>And by opposing end them?”
>>
>>Stated in more contemporary language, that might go something like this:
>>
>>“I face an existential quandary:
>>Would it be more meaningful to endure my finite existence passively
>>With mute acceptance of its pain and difficulty,
>>Or to actively engage with the contradictions I face
>>With the prospect of effectively addressing at least a few of them?”
>>
>>Though the rational content of the two versions 
>>is arguably identical, their expressive power 
>>is not. Shakespeare wins hands down!
>>
>>Institutional religion is an attempt to order 
>>and regulate the expressions of faith so that 
>>they are widely available and maintain some 
>>integrity. That’s what constitutes religion: 
>>ways of expressing faith. One authentic role of 
>>the church is to provide occasions for 
>>expression and dramatization of the perspective that is the Christian faith.
>>
>>Faith can exist without rigorous contemporary 
>>theology, as my friends demonstrated. Can it 
>>also exist without appropriate means of 
>>expression? That’s a personal question for 
>>me. I’m a ritual addict who appreciates the 
>>“high church” expressions of liturgy, 
>>architecture, scripture, and music. 
>>Emotionalism that passes for depth in many 
>>churches leaves me cold. It’s difficult to 
>>find a place that does the job I’m looking for.
>>
>>4. Reflection. A three-hour History Channel 
>>program on Easter presented the life of Jesus 
>>in its original setting with commentary by New 
>>Testament scholars, archeologists, and 
>>historians. It was an attempt to “get 
>>behind” the story and see what it meant to 
>>its authors. It was generally a fine 
>>documentary with realistic dramatization. But 
>>it had one significant failing: it considered 
>>the gospels as if they were historical accounts 
>>rather than considering them from the point of 
>>view of the writer as expressions of his faith. 
>>The commentators were good historians and 
>>pointed out that the links between many of the 
>>stories about Jesus and Old Testament 
>>prophecies were intended to stress the 
>>importance of Jesus, not necessarily to record 
>>facts. They certainly emphasized the 
>>gruesomeness of the crucifixion and its 
>>contradiction to the image of “messiah” in 
>>the culture. [One then described it as evidence 
>>of “God’s philanthropy,” a term which 
>>left me mystified. It only makes sense if you 
>>believe in a substitutionary atonement theory 
>>which, I think, mis-represents the meaning of 
>>the story. But that’s getting into theology.]
>>
>>When it came to the resurrection, the 
>>historians were careful neither to affirm it as 
>>historical (though they quoted one who thought 
>>it was – “If youu’re going to make up a 
>>story to convince people Jesus was the Messiah, 
>>you certainly would not make up one so 
>>improbable as this.” ) – nor to deny it. But 
>>they certainly affirmed that something 
>>happpened to the dispersed disciples that 
>>forged them into an unstoppable movement. What 
>>they missed was the fact that this story was 
>>written at least 40 years after the happening, 
>>whatever it was, and that it expressed the 
>>faith of the community. It was not recorded as 
>>a historical account but as an expression of 
>>faith. In any case, the pertinent issue is: 
>>what does the resurrection story say about faith?
>>
>>I leave that for another paper.
>>
>>
>>[1] These insights came from a discussion with 
>>Symond Kock, PhD, and Park Si Won, D.M. We met 
>>in Singapore as Si Won was en route to 
>>Indonesia on a mission from his church in 
>>Korea. He was explaining how, in developing 
>>rice barns and padi cultivation, he and his 
>>Korean church had built 400+ churches in Indonesia.
>>_______________________________________________
>>OE mailing list
>>OE at wedgeblade.net
>>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
>
>
>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>OE mailing list
>OE at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>OE mailing list
>OE at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20120412/455cceb5/attachment.html>