The Rev. Julyan Drew and myself have in recent sermons (quite coincidentally) both referred to Thomas (John 21:24 -26). Please consider the following and respond with your own thoughts. Thanks!!
The following is an extract from Rev Drew's sermon.
Then there’s Thomas. Thomas called Didymus. Except Thomas comes from the Aramaic Te’oma which means twin, as does Didymus in Greek. Poor old Thomas Thomas, Didymus Didymus, Twin, Twin. Like New York, so good they named him twice. Except he’s not good. He’s doubting Thomas. And doubt’s not good, not in eyes of some Ch’ns. I remember, tho I hold nothing against person who said it, now promoted to glory, a Ch’n asking me once as I struggled with depression that brought me near to suicide: where is your faith. As though having faith would have made me right; or having faith would have prevented me going under in the first place. Would that it were so easy, we’d all go out and just decide to believe and all would be well. Except it’s not like that. And I say thank God for Thomas with his doubts; thank God for Thomas who doubted but hung on in there. Good on you, Didymus. “We are called, not only to believe with certainty, but also doubt with integrity, said someone. “ There lives more faith in honest doubt than in half the creeds,” said Alfred Lord Tennyson while Tillich said, “Doubt is not the opposite of faith but an element of faith.”
Here is an extract from my own sermon (read Nathaniel's story at John 1:43-49)
I would like to conclude if I may with an observation about Nathaniel and Thomas. Nathaniel and particularly Thomas can be criticised for their lack of belief, lack of faith, but what I admire about both individuals is that actually they were open to the possibility the Jesus was the one talked about by Moses and the Prophets, that Jesus bodily rose from the dead. And they responded wholeheartedly when they were confronted with the truth.
The stories of Nathaniel and Thomas give me hope, because too be honest, my faith in God in Jesus is not always what it should be. Or what I would like it to be. I find it hard to always accept that God will work for good to those that love him. There are a lot of questions a lot of doubts about God and his purpose that is prompted through personal experience and observations about what happens in the world.
Yet the irony of this is that it actually drives me to God. I find myself stripping away layers of theology and tradition that can mask God. I attempt to get to the heart of God himself. And do you what I find him and then that’s when healing and wholeness often takes place.
I look forward to your replies and thoughts.
God's Shalom to you and your loved ones,
Stephen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Thanks for getting this going Steve. I think key to this whole question is our understanding of God, that is the sort of God we believe in, pray to; the nature of that God. A thought to be getting on with: an atheist is not someone who doesn't believe in god, but someone who doesn't believe in a theist God. What do you think?
Wow Julyan you have opened up a great debate. In response to your first point, I think we all have some expectation of how we expect God to react to and in certain situations. When what we desire doesn't happen the inevitable question is asked. Can doubt be part of a living faith. Your life illustration, Tennyson's comment, my experience and Thomas's Story says absolutely!
Your question about atheism turns the dictionary definition on its head. I would expect that many "atheists" have not considered this. Certainly the concept of the clock/watch maker God in which he turns the universal key and lets things be is a question i will ask my atheist friend
Stephen
The problem may be in the words we use. Once we try to speak of God, we run out of words and we assume that the words we have used sum up all that God can be. A Buddhist reecently spoke of that which is "beyond" as "the unborn, the emptiness"; there is also the concept of "the dazzling darkness". The scientists sees proof one way, the one whose prayer is answered sees it another; the one whose prayer is unanswered may see that as proof that God doesn't exist or doesn't answer prayer, or that somehow they weren't good enough, or weren't praying hard enough. But if we do not see God as having to provide for our needs but in another way, then prayer may take on a new meaning altogether, and we are released from wanting what we may not be able to have and freed to experience the depths of being, that is our own being as well as to plunge into that "being" which is beyond all words and creeds.
I asked my Atheist workmate whether he believed in gods/God but not one that was involved in the world. His answer was he didn't believe in gods/God but he believed in science (although he could not accept that science could be "God"). He was insistent that if there was a God it was a "being", and would not consider any other concept. I will continue to encourage him to push back his boundaries of thought as I would encourage us all to do!
Stephen
With regard to your last comment Julyan, we the church and even those outside the church)are consumed for want of a better word, about the personal aspect of faith and belief and religion. There are those who say I can believe so there is a God, and those who say I can't believe so there can't be a God, and those in between. Individual punishment and reward has been a dominant theme in Church history and theology. And maybe we are at a point where as you rightly say we need to take a step back and take a wider view. You say we need to look on God not as one who provides for our needs but in another way. What is that other way? Is it to accept that God is who he is and be satisfied with that?
What of the idea of the cloud of unknowing, the place where faith is truly required. Is it faith if we have alll the answers. If our prayers are only to a great provider in the sky, what happens when the provision fails; if God is rather that in which I live and move and have my being, I and all creation, then it is not just about personal reward or punishment but about a wider picture. Militant atheists like daniel dennett now call themselves "brights" with the implication that those of faith are anything but. Reason would suggest that many claims made by some Ch'ns don't stand up but is faith the answer to what cannot be proved or is faith a way of living and being that does not deny reality but looks for a wider meaning. Scientists too work by faith, making steps forward by faith; the difference is that they wwill seek to prove them by evidence. Chalk and cheese. Ultimately incompatible? Shalom.
I think this might be part of a wider debate. It seems to me that, from earliest times, in an attempt to get the facts straight so that everybody knew where they stood, the Church has treated 'faith' and 'belief' as being the same thing. I don't think that is right. The underlying meaning of 'faith' is 'trust', and that's a matter of choice. I choose to trust trust Jesus much as I choose to trust or to distrust people I know. 'Belief is a matter of the mind, and isn't altogether a choice. I believe something because the evidence is convincing to me. If I think the facts point one way, I can't make an honest choice to 'believe' the opposite. Nor can I 'believe' something just because I'm told to; like Thomas, who has a rather 21st Century approach, I want to see some evidence. There is, of course, an intimate connection between faith and belief, because my faith rests on certain things I believe about Jesus, based on the evidence available. In today's world our understanding of many things grows rapidly, hence perfectly proper the see-sawing of belief and doubt, but we know much that people in New Testament times did not know, so what I believe about God is very different from what people in early centuries or in, say, the Middle Ages believed, but I continue to have faith because I'm still ready to trust the personality of Jesus as I understand it. Christians need to be free to hold different opinions about the facts of their religion, without those differences dividing us from one another; it isn't helpful to try to insist that everybody holds exactly the same views.
Thanks, Dijon, the trust / belief issue is at the heart of it all. Some churches attract people who all "believe" the same, or are encouraged to say / think they do. Others are far more ready to say that there is a range of beliefs within its people, and indeed even be encouraging and nurturing of that. The latter is, I think, the more honest approach, and the one more likely to build that necessary "trust". In any case, chuches, if honest, will contain people moving forwards and backwards along a "trust" continuum, developing understanding of matters of faith and belief at different rates, being more or less able to integrate matters of faith and belief with their everyday lives and the changing world around them, not least in matters of science and our understanding of that world as, Dijon, you have suggested. Thanks for the post and blessings.
Thanks Dijon, a very thoughtful contribution. I like your idea of trusting in the personality of Jesus. This is the one thing that perhaps we can always trust in even in the midst of the greatest change. I have just been reading the story of Gideon who coincidentally desired signs and miracles from God to assure himself (Gideon) that he was doing the right thing. This led to belief in God not faith I think. With regard to changing views of God down the ages I remember Rev Ian Haille (former chairman of Cornwal methodist district) saying that our theology should always be changing. For me this has always been sound advice. If we are to "grow in the faith" then surely change of ideas, of understanding is a natural consequence. Some people think I automatically follow Julyan's lead but I would say we have very different viewpoints on certain aspects of faith. What we have done and I value it greatly is share ideas and thoughts and ask questions of each other and have done for the past 18 + years. I think we would agree that this blog site wants to recognise and give people the opportunity to say is I look at things differently. And to "celebrate" that but also give readers the opportunity to have their own thinking challenged
Theology, even if a personal view, must always have its roots, I would think, in the theology of a community - that is, it all begins somewhere and is shaped by experience and conversation, by worship and action. Theology unchanging is merely dead or dying dogma. Dijon's trust in the Jesus personality offers a way of interacting with the world, and of allowing that interaction to shape our theology / our thoughts and words about God. It is what I see as sharing the faith of Jesus rather than believing in Jesus. The faith of Jesus, seen in the manner of his living and dying, is for me the key to my being a Christian; it is a pattern that draws me like a moth to a flame. It is in responding to that pattern, seeking to follow it that I begin to discover what God is for me and might be for others. Thanks again both for your contributions and opening the conversation wider still. Shalom.
How good to hear both Julyan and Stephen talk of being a Christian but often being disturbed by doubt.John Betjaman wrote "I am the ressurection and the life":
strong, deep and painful, doubt inserts the knife.
I think he also said something like "reaching for a hand in the darkness"
But to come back again.
I also find Jesus life and death the key for me.
A word in support of "belief". By belief, I don't mean the unthinking, literal acceptance of "facts" about God delivered to us as children. Rather the "possible evidences" of God's nature that we pick up from personal experiences, the writings of others (including Scripture) and the world around. it sometimes seems that early in a Christian life we we get more of these than later on. Could this be because they build up in us a pattern of thinking that whoever God is, s/he cares for and values us as much as the rest of the cosmos is valued and cared for. Once this has sunk in, do we perhaps need less frequent reassurances? Perhaps belief/ beliefs lead to faith and then take a less prominent role, once we've begun to trust the personality of God even when life gets hard.
Thanks annej and pinxit for your posts. Reaching a hand in the darkness (the cloud of unknowing?) is tied up with pour beliefs arising from our experiences; trust leading to trust or belief that trust is appropriate / right whatever comes. Someone said to me about the business of praying for dry weather (I'm always being asked to do that) that she had suggested to one who had offered a prayer for dry weather at a guide camp that it might be better to pray for strength to cope with whatever weather came. Shalom all.
sorry, that should read "our beliefs" not "pour beliefs" - clumsy fingers!
I hope to comment on some of the recent posts in the near future. But I would like opinion on the following please?
When I was going through an extremely difficult and painful period where I was unsure about the reality of God and the whole "faith thing", I actually read the bible and prayed more than I believe I have ever done. (Is this an example of suffering driving to God?) A retired Minister offered me this advice. "Hold onto God and he will hold onto you." The question I want to ask is "Was he wrong?" Should he have not said. "God will not let go of you even if you let go of him." I often think of the words of the father in Mark 9 who has a son who for a number of years has harmed himself, even tried to kill himself. When the father asks Jesus, "I believe, help my unbelief!" what is the poor man really saying?
A very important question. In such times I have had to hold on where possible just to the thought that "God is" and nothing more. But at times even that isn't possible and we might think that God "is not" or if God exists then God is not loving or powerful (the theodicy problem for the individual, I suppose)- or, as that it is "all my fault" - the guilt thing - that is I'm too sinful, I didn't pray hyrad enough etc. There are times and we need to recognise it to be so, when we cannot hold onto God whatever our concept of God and I suppose that is wehn the church might come into its own, not laying on the guilt trip but holding the struggler thrugh their troubles, living out, acting out, incarnating the love that is God. Sometimes we have to believe for others. In fact it has been said to me that that is my task as a minister, and maybe it is the task of all Christians / believers. I think Vincent Donovan had something to say on this and I'll post it if I can find it and it's relevant. Shalom.
Coming back to Dijons observation that "faith is a matter of choice." and "belief is a matter of mind and isn't altogether a choice", on the "Today" programme this morning there were interviews with Richard Dawkins (fiercely atheist) and Father Cormac Murphy head of the Roman Catholic Church. The debate centred around the importance of religion in society, that it (religion) should not be pushed to the fringes. It was interesting that in a social and community context, both Dawkins and Father Murphy centred their argument, (for and against religion in the centre of social life) on personal belief. Dawkins referred to God as "another imaginary friend" and wanted to see evidence that he exists. Father Cormac did not really put forward a convincing argument to prove the existence of God.
I suppose the question I would want to ask those who rely on "reason" is, can reason alone mend broken relationships? fractured communities? Is it reasonable to allow individuals to live without boundaries? The boundaries I have in mind are social, moral, economic. I come back to the question I asked in my post of April 20th. The obsession of personal faith, personal choice. I recently had a conversation with someone close who I believed needed to get a job even though he wasn't keen. I said to him that he had to contribute something. Something to the family, He had to pay "keep" but also it was about contributing to society to help his fellow men and woman through his labours, whether that is packing their shopping bags offering a cheerful word or paying tax. In short he should work because it was for the greater good of others. Further he has skills to offer. (I have always said the world needs more people like this particular person)The same could be said about me. I could perhaps be better off not working but it would not sit comfortably. My living out the Christian faith means for me contributing. Social responsibility is a theme I can see in the Old Testament. It is in the New Testament too but maybe not as visible due to the misplaced emphasis on what Christ has done for me myself and I. So maybe as Julyan said we should invest time energy and consideration in the "theology of community" Politics I think is driven by moral imperitaves as well as reasonable ones. In fact so many aspects that seem to dominate the political agenda, health, education, the welfare state, workers rights etc have been created and driven I would argue by individuals and organisations who would say they have Christian roots and ideals.
Post a Comment