When people tell me that they are at a low point in their Christian walk, I understand them to mean "spiritually" or "emotionally." The causes are quite obvious, and it seems that for most part, they feel that they are at a low point because they feel guilty for neglecting QT's, Prayer Times, reading the Word, etc. I think it's important not to confuse feeling guilt and low points in our Christian lives. For me, although I do neglect these spiritual disciplines, I do not think that one needs to be absorbed completely in their wake in order to feel spiritually fulfilled. In fact, I do not place that much value at all on my feelings; God will be God, He will be good, despite my feelings towards Him; and really, doesn't Job who have suffered every violence by an (seemingly?) unjust God sit quietly before Him? (I had a chance to read Wiesel's "Night" and felt that he was in the right for putting God on trial... ) Of course, it's nice to be touched now and then, and He does indeed break me occasionally, or prompt me with His Spirit to pray for certain people, but when I do not feel Him, it is not for me a problem. God, by definition, is the ultimate good, and whenever I align myself to do good, I am aligning myself with God, despite my "feelings." Of course, I would still want to do it for His sake, but Jesus says to identify Him with the least.
Perhaps though, there is a correlation between my emotional walk and my intellectual walk (as if I was so naive as to think that they could possibly be separated!). But, at the end of the day, before I sleep, my thoughts wander to questions and prayers. I pray that God would lead me in the right intellectual path, to ultimately lead me through life as the true Head. But immediately, I am swayed; What about "this?" What about "that?" How does this go against the Gospel as I understand it? How does it support it? Is it Orthodox (I use this word now with a sense of militant impatience)?
The doubts begin, quite literally, "In the Beginning", Genesis. The Documentary Hypothesis, which in its traditional form has been largely modified, really exploded my paradigm of the Pentateuch and what it means for Scripture to be "inspired." Then came the other ancient Mesopotamian myths whose connections to the "supposedly-unique" story of creation placed the first two chapters of Genesis firmly in the Mesopotamian myth category, although, of course, with its own developments. Following this was the dissolution of the much-revered "historicity" of the Pentateuch. Although the Pentateuch is ostensibly "historical," it is only in appearance, and a good chunk of it is not relating history, but aetiology, ideology, and theology. This is bolstered by archaeological digs that largely disproved the Israelite Canaanite conquests. And finally, The Art of Biblical Narrative, by Robert Alter, cemented the literary aspects of the Pentateuch in a manner that made it clear that the book is literature, not history. (I don't want to talk about the problems with historiography here). Despite all this, I still hold, by sheer will or choice, to believe that the Old Testament is still the inspired Word of God; in what form, I do not yet know, but, at least in the Pentateuch, historically is out of the picture. I now see the books themselves as products of history, and not simply relating history.
I am questioning even the concept of the "canon", though my thoughts should develop first before I talk about it. (I think it would be an interesting essay topic at least!)
As for the Bible, I can hold it as the authoritative Word of God and doctrinally infallible, but I cannot hold it to be historically infallible. (Perhaps this is an untenable position though). What I am hindered by is that the Bible (there it is again, the "canon!") is not the stopping point. It relates a historical event, and meaning is attached only after the historical moment. When Jesus was raised from the dead in that cave, the Marys (or Peter, or other disciples, who exactly was it?) only could respond in astonishment. Meaning about the resurrection was only attributed later, and most dominately in our minds, by Paul, this mysterious Jew. Can I believe in the historical moment but not the interpretation of that moment, since the interepretation is itself a product of history, and thus an approximation? Where can I find ground? (Perhaps it lays in Jesus' self-claim, "I am the way, the truth!, the life)
I do not yet want to talk about the gospels, or the "Historical Jesus," but just to rant a little here. I am tired of Christians saying that "Christianity is a relationship not a religion." That is so stupid. Of course it's a relationship, but it fits within certain doctrinal limits. This theological system is a part of the definition of religion, though not its whole. Another FB group that I saw read, "The Historical Jesus is the Jesus of Faith!" I do not think the creator of the group really understood what that means or what far reaching consequences there seems to be. The first time I went across that board, I was instinctly going to join it; Of course He is! What else could He be? But now, I scoff. There needs to be a reason behind it, other than simply faith.
Hope this was not too depressing.
Firmly in Christ,
Jae Han
_____________________________________________
In other news, I am still tutoring and using most of my days reviewing my Hebrew (it's coming along slowly but surely) and reading, and have very-somewhat successfully read the first chapters of Genesis! *pat pat. I think I've given up on the idea of book review (I know, I'm a flake) particularly because I don't know exactly what to say about them, except in the most juvenile way, "I LIKE IT! IT WAS SUPER NEATO!" I am right now reading two books, E.P. Sanders The Historical Jesus, which I do not think is all that great (although to be honest I think I was spoiled by Meier's Marginal Jew) and after reading Prof. Kaufmann's preface, also Martin Buber's I and Thou. I really wish I brought my other Alter and Kugel book, the ones that I found IN THE TRASH on moveout day (it isn't coincidence!) but I simply have to read them later. I am also interested in "Narrative Theology" or what wiki calls "Postliberal Theology" so if any of my MANY MANY readers happen to know of any books, please let me know. (I was tempted to buy yet another book on Narrative Theory called, "The Nature of Narrative" but decided against it. Now I regret it.) I also feel like I should read The Brother Karamazov, not really because I want to, but because everyone smart I know has read it. Peer pressure, I thought I was over middle school. Aside from that, I have rediscovered my love for Chaim Potok, The Chosen, The Gift of Asher Lev, and so on. It turns out that Potok was highly critical of Buber's romantic take on Hasidism! And speaking of Jews, apparently there is a showing of Fiddler on the Roof in the OC Performing Arts Center. Whee. My life is so exciting! :)
To life, to life, L'chaim!
1 comment:
Hey Jae, I'm not going to comment on the specifics of your doubts, since you obviously know much more about these topics than I do. All I can say is that you should dig as deeply as you can to try to find the truth (with God's help) if you feel that it is really important for your faith. Perhaps you will find that it doesn't really matter too much for your faith, perhaps you will find that it is imperative. But don't settle for a half-baked, "Sunday school" answer that completely ignores the arguments from the opposite camp, because that will only come back to haunt you later. Hope that preparations for your internship are going well. You're a good man.
Post a Comment