A Doubting Faith

As humans, we can merely sense the existence of a higher truth, a greater coherence than ourselves, but we cannot see it face to face. That is either funny or sad, and humans stagger from one option to the other. Neither beasts nor angels, we live in twilight, and we are unsure whether it is a prelude to morning or a prelude to night.

There is much in this article by Andrew Sullivan which rings true to me.

Very much indeed.

17 Comments

  1. DAVID u

    I read that article in my newest TIME last night. I thought he had some good things to say……..in fact I will probably quote him on my blog. But, I also disagreed with several of his insights and conclusions.

    ROLL TIDE! 🙂 Can you get me Bama vs Auburn tickets?

    DU

  2. Mike the Eyeguy

    DU–

    If I could get my hands on Bama/Auburn tickets, do you think I would be handing them over to you? 😉

    Maybe I’m just having a bad day, but I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what Sullivan had to say.

  3. Laurie

    Religiosity minus humilty equals zealotry. A lethal equation.

    I haven’t read the article yet, but will just as soon as I track down where son #2 put my Time Magazine.

  4. Nancy

    Um…

    Give me a break. Andrew Sullivan hates Christians and is trying to equate us with a genocidal maniac.

    You must be really having a bad day, EyeGuy!

    Chin up!

  6. Mike the Eyeguy

    Nancy–

    I know Sullivan has his “issues,” but if context helps, I’ve also enjoyed the writings of Camille Paglia over the years. I guess as a small “l” libertarian sitting more or less in the center of the political spectrum, I have less problems “going both ways,” so to speak.

    As to the article, I am not a fundamentalist. In the words of Philip Yancey, I am a “reluctant Christian” who has always had some empathy with those who point out the hubris and cockesureness of some Chrisitians who see everything in terms of a black and white, manicheistic struggle.

    I don’t discern from this article that Sullivan “hates Christians” or that he equates them with “genocidal maniacs.” I think what he does disagree with is the arrogance of some, and I think it is a point well taken, regardless of the source. Whatever happened to “working out your salvation with fear and trembling?” For some, it seems, the salvation is a given and all that is left is to work one’s way into the political and power structures of this world and “take control,” with nary a thought as to whether or not there might be some other valid viewpoint or mode of practicing one’s faith.

    The Amish story was good, thank you. There is much for everyone to learn from that horrible incident. Still, I wonder if some of the boys who were released are having second thoughts. For instance, what would have happened if some of them had refused to leave, perhaps doing what the oldest girl did (“Shoot me first”)? I wonder if some of them might have had a spark of that instinctive desire to protect innocents well up inside them in those terrible moments and now wonder what would have happened if they had given those impulses free reign?

    Hard to say; ultimately one is left to admire, and envy, their profound faith.

  7. Nancy

    If you need evidence that Sullivan despises what he calls “Christianists” just visit his website. And if you are reluctant to embrace “cocksuredness” and “hubris” you should not dig Sullivan, who would consider you a bigot for your views, no matter how nice you are.

    Yes, what a tragedy with the Amish. So terrible, I can barely read about it. for the surviving boys, I can’t imagine how they feel. I heard that they’re burning the school to the ground this week.

    Awful,
    nancy

  8. Mike the Eyeguy

    Sorry Nancy, I just can’t help myself. I even stopped in Barnes & Noble tonight and picked up Sullivan’s “Conservative Soul” and once again found myself nodding in agreement with some of what he had to say. That’s most certainly not the same as saying that I agree with everything he says.

    I read how Sullivan defines “Christianist” on his website, and while I think there’s a good bit of hyperbole in the term (I personally might choose to be a bit more charitable with those with whom I disagree), it’s clear to me that the use of such language alone does not imply that he “hates” all Christians.

    BTW, I went into B&N looking for your book (I still haven’t received mine yet) but it wasn’t there yet. We asked the guy at the counter about it, and he went ahead and ordered one and said that even if I didn’t buy it that he would put in on the shelf when it came.

    Maybe I’ll write one for middle-to-slightly-right-of-center types like me. I could call it “A Purple State of Mind” (you know, red + blue).

  9. Tarwater

    I do not doubt some of the things which Sullivan says. However, I seriously doubt that his faith is Christian Faith. I say that because he has made public his notion of faith and must therefore submit to public scrutiny of his idea.

    The best I can do is point to Newman on Faith, Doubt, and Private Judgment. He is far wiser than Sullivan and he has the calm judgment of the greatest minds and lives in history living and dying in agreement with him. Chesterton agrees with him. So does Pascal, Augustine, Aquinas, John of the Cross, Dante, Teresa of Avila, Francis de Sales, Maximus the Confessor, Vladimir Soloviev, Hopkins, Knox, Campion, and on and on. On matters where all of these great believers agree, isn’t one’s footing over the abyss to stand in contradistinction with their common judgment?

    Anyway, here is Newman:

    http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse10.html

    http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse11.html

    http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=473

    The first two essays are long but immensely worth it.

    Best,
    Tarwater

  10. Mike the Eyeguy

    TW–

    Thanks for weighing in, your voice empowered as it is with a “great cloud of witnesses.”

    “I do not doubt some of the things which Sullivan says.”

    And neither do I, which was my point. I try to hold to the rule of grasping truth wherever I can find it, separating the wheat from the chaff, weighing it all in the balance and discarding that which is not useful or true. In short, to practice discernment.

    In the case of this essay, there were several of his ideas that resonated with me in my present state of mind, the highlighted passage being chief among them.

    What I will not do is simply dismiss out-of-hand everything someone says because they happen to be a promiscuous gay, politically mercurial and/or possess certain theological beliefs which are tenuous at best. And that would include any Popes from the past who might happen to fit that same description.

  11. Tarwater

    Very much agreed. All truth is God’s truth.

  12. Tarwater

    “I try to hold to the rule of grasping truth wherever I can find it, separating the wheat from the chaff, weighing it all in the balance and discarding that which is not useful or true. In short, to practice discernment.”

    As much as I agree, isn’t there a small problem within this conviction? Who decides on the criteria that will be used in doing the work of discernment? How do you determine what is wheat and what is chaff? Something other than your intuition? What? Are you the arbiter of Truth? Or is there some other criteria besides subjective private judgment?

    Here is Ratzinger summing up the modern situation and the ‘dictatorship of relativism’:

    “The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’ becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”

    Is there a trustworthy organ of Truth in the world?

  13. Mike the Eyeguy

    Tarwater, I think you’re starting to get a little cheeky. 😉

    “As much as I agree, isn’t there a small problem within this conviction? Who decides on the criteria that will be used in doing the work of discernment? How do you determine what is wheat and what is chaff? Something other than your intuition? What? Are you the arbiter of Truth? Or is there some other criteria besides subjective private judgment?”

    Nothing’s perfect (or is that infallible?). Right now, for me, it’s scripture, reason and tradition (small “t”). Does that make me Anglican?

    “Is there a trustworthy organ of Truth in the world?”

    Sometimes I wonder. Which, again, is why, at that particular moment, some of Sullivan’s thoughts hit home with me.

    Note to self: Post more Andrew Sullivan. RE: Generate cheekiness

  14. Tarwater

    Tradition with a little t? What traditions and why? Don’t we have to be specific here? It makes a great difference. Isn’t your ‘tradition’ in danger of being a tad nebulous?

    For example: Is the Nicene Creed normative for all Christians? It was for every Christian that ever lived before the 1500s (If that ain’t tradition I can’t imagine what would be).

    If it isn’t, then on what basis can one claim that the collection of writings known as the Bible is normative for Christian Faith? Why not other writings? Why not throw out James and 2 Peter? How can a fallible Church produce an infallible set of writings?

    If it is, then why doesn’t one simply find out which Church was instituted by the Lord and recognize all the others as sectarian and unjustified in their separation from the one Church the Lord founded (seeing as the Lord promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against the one Church he founded)?

  15. Mike the Eyeguy

    Too many questions. This blog has a three question limit.

    I do like, and respect, the creeds, canon(s) and councils (as do the Orthodox and Anglicans). But there seems to me (oops there’s goes that reason and discernment again) that there is an immense chasm between those great orthodox traditions and the RC teaching that masturbation and contraception within marriage are mortal sins.

    To be a faithful Catholic, it’s all or nothing, no?

  16. Double vision

    Hello Mike the Eyeguy,
    This quote rings true for me. I’m a passionate skeptical Christian. I have days of darkness and light as well.

    Old friend-here’s to more of the light. And not Bud Light.

    p.s. You sound a lot like this ole Presbyterian in your theology. Told a guy he was presbyopic the other day and he said “You don’t know me very well I’m Baptist!”

  17. Mike the Eyeguy

    DV–

    If you are who I think you are, then “old friend” is correct, and welcome! How is it that we’ve not crossed paths since those Nashville days? We must remedy that sometime soon.

    I’m glad to hear that I’m not alone. Yes, by all means, here’s to “more of the light.”

    Love the name. Hopefully, not too many of your patients emerge from your exam room with double vision!

Comments are closed.