During my time at Fuller I have often come across the notion that spirituality can often function as a defense from actually experiencing reality. In other words, what we often term spirituality may in fact just be a false show that deceives others and ourselves. I think it is important to consider because we should never pretend that just because someone says that they are turning over something to God does not mean they are properly dealing with the situation. I think some humility is required to accept the fact that we still don't "work our faith" perfectly.
But my reservation is this: is it possible to turn something over to God in a manner that is considered psychologically healthy? When do we stop trying to process something and finally make the decision not to worry about it and place it in God's hands? Sometimes I worry that there is a fuzzy line that we cannot always discern. In my opinion we never fully process life events. We never get over them; they always mark our lives. If that is the case then we should wonder when it is appropriate to claim God's grace for the event.
I think it takes a discerning, objective eye. We cannot trust ourselves to be in charge of our own spirituality. We need wise elders who can tell us when things that we claim to have turned over to God are really eating at our souls. There are a couple tell-tale signs that we have used spirituality improperly: we unconsciously do things to harm a relationship with a person we claim to have forgiven, we avoid prayer because of anger with God, we are completely unwilling to consider that we might not be fully surrendered to God in an area, or we are highly judgemental of others with a flaw that we feel we have been forgiven of.
If all else fails it does not hurt to revisit our past. It may take some time and energy but it promotes humility and the willingness to continue to learn from previous mistakes.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Fireworks
I started thinking about a blog I would want to write and all of a sudden I hear the fireworks from Disneyland booming. I'm a good 15 miles from Disneyland but they are still pretty loud. Anyways, the fireworks captured my attention. What captures your attention? What do you hear that sticks out from all the noise? What do you see that blinds you in comparison to the dark? What do you feel that reverberates through your bones?
I believe that 90% of our days we operate at 10% of our capacity. We just don't seem to be aware of what is going around us. Think about the times when you have gone through your day and all of a sudden realize that it is a beautiful day out. We live in a state of semi-awareness. I think there are three things that reliably awaken us from our trance.
The first is pleasure. Whether it is sensory or emotional, pleasure brings us into reality. Suddenly for the sake of fully enjoying life we decide to engage in what is around us.
The second is pain. For some reason when we are in pain we suddenly start fighting vehemently to find the answer. It's curious because it seems impossible to deny reality when we are in pain. I'm thinking of Fight Club where Edward Norton tries to visualize the cave with the penguins to escape the pain. But he just can't do it, the pain brings him back to reality.
Pleasure and pain are the fireworks for our souls.
I believe that 90% of our days we operate at 10% of our capacity. We just don't seem to be aware of what is going around us. Think about the times when you have gone through your day and all of a sudden realize that it is a beautiful day out. We live in a state of semi-awareness. I think there are three things that reliably awaken us from our trance.
The first is pleasure. Whether it is sensory or emotional, pleasure brings us into reality. Suddenly for the sake of fully enjoying life we decide to engage in what is around us.
The second is pain. For some reason when we are in pain we suddenly start fighting vehemently to find the answer. It's curious because it seems impossible to deny reality when we are in pain. I'm thinking of Fight Club where Edward Norton tries to visualize the cave with the penguins to escape the pain. But he just can't do it, the pain brings him back to reality.
Pleasure and pain are the fireworks for our souls.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Therapy as Church
The counseling room is a sacred place. Not only is what you say confidential, you are expected to share your deepest secrets. So connecting the therapy room with a sanctuary is not a great stretch. But is therapy an outstretch of church? Can it be? Perhaps we should discuss first what therapy is already doing to aid the work of the church and then we can discuss what it could potentially do for the church if it was oriented that way.
Therapy is confession
Somewhere along the line we have learned that what makes us grow is something which the church has taught for years: confession. It is hardly surprising that confession was encouraged as a spiritual discipline given that it seems to produce some definitive life changes. There is something about confessing secrets that breaks the power of shame. In this sense, therapy acts as a church because it provides a place where people can learn how to confess. The ideal is that the client will learn to confess as a life practice outside of therapy and that the church will then equip the individual with the theological teachings that can allow the person to change, whether it is their behavior or their identity.
Therapy teaches self-awareness
Another gift of therapy is that we learn to be more aware of how we are feeling and what we are thinking. By doing so we learn to recognize our internal states more readily. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that the commandments against murder, adultery, covetousness, and idolatry were about the attitudes and not just the actions. As such church is concerned with what is inside the individual. Therapy empowers the person to recognize their defects rather than ignore them. By doing so, therapy is empowering the person to surrender their attitude earlier before the attitude becomes action.
Therapy is about a life-story
Therapy helps the individual create a comprehensible narrative on their life. As a result, the person can learn to recognize themes and conflicts within their own life. One of the church's primary modes of teaching is through the stories of the Bible. If a person is more aware of their own lifestory, they can use the Biblical narratives as a way of understanding themselves and God. Since therapy has taught them how to create their own autobiography, they can learn to relate to stories as well as commandments and facts.
What therapy can be:
Therapy is confession
Somewhere along the line we have learned that what makes us grow is something which the church has taught for years: confession. It is hardly surprising that confession was encouraged as a spiritual discipline given that it seems to produce some definitive life changes. There is something about confessing secrets that breaks the power of shame. In this sense, therapy acts as a church because it provides a place where people can learn how to confess. The ideal is that the client will learn to confess as a life practice outside of therapy and that the church will then equip the individual with the theological teachings that can allow the person to change, whether it is their behavior or their identity.
Therapy teaches self-awareness
Another gift of therapy is that we learn to be more aware of how we are feeling and what we are thinking. By doing so we learn to recognize our internal states more readily. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that the commandments against murder, adultery, covetousness, and idolatry were about the attitudes and not just the actions. As such church is concerned with what is inside the individual. Therapy empowers the person to recognize their defects rather than ignore them. By doing so, therapy is empowering the person to surrender their attitude earlier before the attitude becomes action.
Therapy is about a life-story
Therapy helps the individual create a comprehensible narrative on their life. As a result, the person can learn to recognize themes and conflicts within their own life. One of the church's primary modes of teaching is through the stories of the Bible. If a person is more aware of their own lifestory, they can use the Biblical narratives as a way of understanding themselves and God. Since therapy has taught them how to create their own autobiography, they can learn to relate to stories as well as commandments and facts.
What therapy can be:
- Therapy can be a place where fellowship can be encouraged. The therapist can teach the person to search for confessional relationships of grace.
- Therapy can be a place of theological discussion. A theologically competent therapist can discuss faith issues in ways that help solidify faith rather than tear it down.
- Therapy can be a place of morality. Therapy can help people see the intrapersonal and interpersonal ramifications of actions.
- Therapy can be a place of personal growth. More than just being a place where people can find relief from mental illness, therapy can be a place where people become better people.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
The Language of Healing
Language is one area where I think psychology fails against religion. The language of psychology is not as powerful as the language of the Bible. And language is world-creating. The words racism, sexism, and spousal abuse were rarely present in the 19th century. But creating the language to discuss the problem allows the problem to be better understood and confronted. I look at four concepts and discuss how Biblical language could help us understand reality better.
Addiction vs. Slave to sin
Although the word addiction has lost some of the stigma surrounding it as people have become more compassionate for those addicted to alcohol, drugs, and sex, it lacks a sense of what it is like to be addicted. Romans 6 describes man as being slaves to sin in order to convey the sense that we are "addicted" to sin. Greek thought, which Paul was likely familiar with, knew of addiction and recognized it's power in human life. But Paul wanted to send a message. While addiction can be a valuefree label, for in some sense we are addicted to food and sleep, slavery is not. Slavery is a terrible way of life, especially under the rule of a wicked master like Sin. But more than that, we find comraderie in our slavery. When we are slaves all we have to live for is our relationships with other slaves. We don't really own anything. We don't have any claim to anything. Our work only benefits our master. We may sit back and enjoy some of the things we create but in the end none of it belongs to us.
Often I, and many others, have seen addiction and being a "slave to sin" as being hand in hand. While that is perhaps an enlightening stance, it neglects the powerful semantic and historical meaning that is suggested by the phrase "slave." When the Hebrews first immigrated to Egypt, they were hoping to find freedom from a devastating famine. But they eventually were enslaved to the Pharoah of Egypt and used their labor to build his great pyramids. So when the Bible says we are slaves to sin, it connects us with the history of Israel within which we find many lessons about our current situation. When the Hebrews were finally freed from slavery, they were angry at God because he didn't immediately bring them to the Promised Land. The word addiction is not semantically connected to this story and so when the addict conceptualizes his or her problem, he sees it in isolation - that is his only problem. But the story of the Exodus, and of American slavery, teaches us that leaving slavery often means entering into a long period of turmoil. The psychological language of addiction doesn't bring this to light, although it is true.
Resistant vs. Hardened heart
Some of you might be familiar with the psychoanalytic term resistant meant to describe client's who deny their therapists brilliant interpretation of why they do what they do. Ok yeah I'm being a bit sarcastic but, yes, I think it does exist. The Bible teaches a similar concept when it talks about those whose hearts are hardened. The Bible used the term to describe those who would not listen to and accept the truth. Sounds similar to resistant right? But the word means a lot more here.
Hard hearted conjures up images of there being a hard coating around the heart. That coating protects the person from damage but also keeps the person from seeing the truth. The heart for the Jew was not the center of emotions - that was the gut - but it was the center of the identity of the person. A hardened heart meant that the person had become inflexible to change, which means a lack of ability to see one's own defects and sins. It illuminates that there is something wrong at the core of the person. Now for a trained psychotherapist this word would probably mean all that. But to explain to a client that they are being resistant seems like it could be only situational - it is very abstract. A hardened heart would convey the message that they are fundamentally wrong. A phrase that would no doubt rock the world of any client and therefore should be used with great care and gentility.
Dying to One's Self vs. ????
From a psychological viewpoint, there isn't much we can say to comfort those who want to do something but feel like doing it would kill them. The man who greatly desires to forgive his alcoholic father so that he can be free of his anger toward feels like it would kill him to do such. And we face these situations everyday in small ways. We feel that if we give up our incessant attempts to control our lives, we would be free, but it terrifies us what could happen. The Biblical language offers a solution - and it isn't pretty. We die to our selves. This means no less than facing our fears head on and saying that we want the freedom more than life itself.
Pathology vs. Sin
Perhaps the most controversial concept within psychotherapy is evil. Most therapists are secular and are quick to challenge the client's notions of what is right and wrong. If the client says they want to have an affair, the therapist would likely ask why don't they have one? Of course the therapist is trying to help the client clarify and strengthen their beliefs but once the client can say no more than "It is wrong; I made a promise" the therapist would likely go in for the kill and suggest that might just be what society says and it is not rational and so they should have an affair. Besides the fact that the therapist is typically shattering the client's moral ground in what I believe is an unethical manner, their view is typically that nothing is wrong unless it is pathology. If it isn't in the DSM IV, the so-called "Bible" of the psychologist, then it's not wrong (homosexuality once was; pedophilia, and other sexual abnormality still is; affairs never were).
The Bible takes a very different stand of course. The Bible teaches that people are not diagnosable, actions are. The DSM intends to use criteria in order to apply a diagnosis to a person while the Bible intends to use criteria in order to label what actions are sinful. The Bible diagnoses all people as sinners and symply gives a list of "symptoms" that describe what make us sinners. (As a side note: I realize I'm painting a negative picture of the Bible as if all it does is tell us how bad we are. That is hardly the case - if it were each time I read it would be a pretty depressing. Secondly, sin is often more about the attitude than the behavior. I use simple descriptions to keep the analogy clear.) But the Bible creates comraderie - while a psychological diagnosis creates isolation. Psychologists have known that their is a labeling effect - people will act more like the diagnosis that they are given. Why? Because people are trying to relearn their identity as one that is pathological and different from normal.
And finally, we often see that people with mental disorders often are extremely talented and can learn to use their disorder to their advantage. Many great poets have been depressed. Many comedians are bipolar or ADD. The reason is that these people learn to channel their disorder in order to become more creative. This is not sin. Sin does not just look at the symptoms, it looks at the effects. A person may feel so angry at his neighbor that he offers to mow his lawn in order to sublimate (I had to throw in some psychojargon) that energy in a positive manner. Or a person may use that anger and cause damage to the neighbor's property. We need this reminder - to know that we can turn our weaknesses into strengths.
Conclusion
All this is to say that we need "Christianeze." Sometimes Christian jargon gets a bad rap because it does not connect with the non-Christians. But that's not to say it shouldn't be used at all. For people who have studied the Bible, these phrases can actually help people understand reality better. I think that the solution to Christianeze with non-Christians and young Christians is not to abandon it completely but to use the language in contexts where their meaning is clear or by explaining the language as it is said. To simply replace Christian words with psychological words means to abandon our history and the culture of love and compassion that makes the church appealing.
Addiction vs. Slave to sin
Although the word addiction has lost some of the stigma surrounding it as people have become more compassionate for those addicted to alcohol, drugs, and sex, it lacks a sense of what it is like to be addicted. Romans 6 describes man as being slaves to sin in order to convey the sense that we are "addicted" to sin. Greek thought, which Paul was likely familiar with, knew of addiction and recognized it's power in human life. But Paul wanted to send a message. While addiction can be a valuefree label, for in some sense we are addicted to food and sleep, slavery is not. Slavery is a terrible way of life, especially under the rule of a wicked master like Sin. But more than that, we find comraderie in our slavery. When we are slaves all we have to live for is our relationships with other slaves. We don't really own anything. We don't have any claim to anything. Our work only benefits our master. We may sit back and enjoy some of the things we create but in the end none of it belongs to us.
Often I, and many others, have seen addiction and being a "slave to sin" as being hand in hand. While that is perhaps an enlightening stance, it neglects the powerful semantic and historical meaning that is suggested by the phrase "slave." When the Hebrews first immigrated to Egypt, they were hoping to find freedom from a devastating famine. But they eventually were enslaved to the Pharoah of Egypt and used their labor to build his great pyramids. So when the Bible says we are slaves to sin, it connects us with the history of Israel within which we find many lessons about our current situation. When the Hebrews were finally freed from slavery, they were angry at God because he didn't immediately bring them to the Promised Land. The word addiction is not semantically connected to this story and so when the addict conceptualizes his or her problem, he sees it in isolation - that is his only problem. But the story of the Exodus, and of American slavery, teaches us that leaving slavery often means entering into a long period of turmoil. The psychological language of addiction doesn't bring this to light, although it is true.
Resistant vs. Hardened heart
Some of you might be familiar with the psychoanalytic term resistant meant to describe client's who deny their therapists brilliant interpretation of why they do what they do. Ok yeah I'm being a bit sarcastic but, yes, I think it does exist. The Bible teaches a similar concept when it talks about those whose hearts are hardened. The Bible used the term to describe those who would not listen to and accept the truth. Sounds similar to resistant right? But the word means a lot more here.
Hard hearted conjures up images of there being a hard coating around the heart. That coating protects the person from damage but also keeps the person from seeing the truth. The heart for the Jew was not the center of emotions - that was the gut - but it was the center of the identity of the person. A hardened heart meant that the person had become inflexible to change, which means a lack of ability to see one's own defects and sins. It illuminates that there is something wrong at the core of the person. Now for a trained psychotherapist this word would probably mean all that. But to explain to a client that they are being resistant seems like it could be only situational - it is very abstract. A hardened heart would convey the message that they are fundamentally wrong. A phrase that would no doubt rock the world of any client and therefore should be used with great care and gentility.
Dying to One's Self vs. ????
From a psychological viewpoint, there isn't much we can say to comfort those who want to do something but feel like doing it would kill them. The man who greatly desires to forgive his alcoholic father so that he can be free of his anger toward feels like it would kill him to do such. And we face these situations everyday in small ways. We feel that if we give up our incessant attempts to control our lives, we would be free, but it terrifies us what could happen. The Biblical language offers a solution - and it isn't pretty. We die to our selves. This means no less than facing our fears head on and saying that we want the freedom more than life itself.
Pathology vs. Sin
Perhaps the most controversial concept within psychotherapy is evil. Most therapists are secular and are quick to challenge the client's notions of what is right and wrong. If the client says they want to have an affair, the therapist would likely ask why don't they have one? Of course the therapist is trying to help the client clarify and strengthen their beliefs but once the client can say no more than "It is wrong; I made a promise" the therapist would likely go in for the kill and suggest that might just be what society says and it is not rational and so they should have an affair. Besides the fact that the therapist is typically shattering the client's moral ground in what I believe is an unethical manner, their view is typically that nothing is wrong unless it is pathology. If it isn't in the DSM IV, the so-called "Bible" of the psychologist, then it's not wrong (homosexuality once was; pedophilia, and other sexual abnormality still is; affairs never were).
The Bible takes a very different stand of course. The Bible teaches that people are not diagnosable, actions are. The DSM intends to use criteria in order to apply a diagnosis to a person while the Bible intends to use criteria in order to label what actions are sinful. The Bible diagnoses all people as sinners and symply gives a list of "symptoms" that describe what make us sinners. (As a side note: I realize I'm painting a negative picture of the Bible as if all it does is tell us how bad we are. That is hardly the case - if it were each time I read it would be a pretty depressing. Secondly, sin is often more about the attitude than the behavior. I use simple descriptions to keep the analogy clear.) But the Bible creates comraderie - while a psychological diagnosis creates isolation. Psychologists have known that their is a labeling effect - people will act more like the diagnosis that they are given. Why? Because people are trying to relearn their identity as one that is pathological and different from normal.
And finally, we often see that people with mental disorders often are extremely talented and can learn to use their disorder to their advantage. Many great poets have been depressed. Many comedians are bipolar or ADD. The reason is that these people learn to channel their disorder in order to become more creative. This is not sin. Sin does not just look at the symptoms, it looks at the effects. A person may feel so angry at his neighbor that he offers to mow his lawn in order to sublimate (I had to throw in some psychojargon) that energy in a positive manner. Or a person may use that anger and cause damage to the neighbor's property. We need this reminder - to know that we can turn our weaknesses into strengths.
Conclusion
All this is to say that we need "Christianeze." Sometimes Christian jargon gets a bad rap because it does not connect with the non-Christians. But that's not to say it shouldn't be used at all. For people who have studied the Bible, these phrases can actually help people understand reality better. I think that the solution to Christianeze with non-Christians and young Christians is not to abandon it completely but to use the language in contexts where their meaning is clear or by explaining the language as it is said. To simply replace Christian words with psychological words means to abandon our history and the culture of love and compassion that makes the church appealing.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
A New Man, A New Blog
Since my recent doubting about the existence of God, I have come to the conclusion that some of my thoughts that I have shared on my blogs have been wrong. Not wrong in the sense of being false but wrong in the sense that they lacked the right perspective and the full view of things. Ok maybe just plain wrong at times as well. So instead of making you go back and do a thoughtful critique of every blog, I thought I would make it easy and do the work myself. I expect it to not only be beneficial to myself but also enlightening to you. And for balance I'll add some other stuff I've been processing so that it will be a good mix of reflections on the past, present concerns, and future aspirations.
Takes a man to admit he's wrong? I'd sure like to think so. I would like to say that I've been open to opposing viewpoints and for input from others, so I think that may redeem me some. Well enough reflection on what my blog will be... next blog I should be back on track.
Takes a man to admit he's wrong? I'd sure like to think so. I would like to say that I've been open to opposing viewpoints and for input from others, so I think that may redeem me some. Well enough reflection on what my blog will be... next blog I should be back on track.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Return to Blogging Expected Shortly
I haven't posted for awhile. I hope you haven't been checking in too frequently. I just thought it best to give myself some time of private thinking before returning to posting my thoughts to the world. From the last post you may have gathered that my faith has been shaken up recently. I've got some stuff that has been on my mind though so check back shortly. I just feel that after doubting the reality of God it would be presumptuous to try and argue anything from the perspective that He is real.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Why I decided not to renounce my faith
As you may have noticed, I have not posted in awhile. The reason is that I went through a crisis of faith. But I want to tell it to you as a story not as a fact. It was frightening, exciting, depressing, and infuriating... and perhaps you might relate.
Just about a week ago I nearly renounced Christianity. I don't say this lightly or jokingly. In fact, the experience was really scary for me. The thoughts had struck me at church on the day before Easter. The direct reason was hearing the pastor talk about a passage in 1 Corinthians 15. But it was a long time coming. I remember once telling someone that I would renounce Christianity if I was ever convinced it was false. But lately I had been questioning that statement. Why? Because even if it weren't true, I think I would still want the community, the purpose, the ethical guidelines. In short, I liked being a Christian regardless of whether or not it was true.
That's no problem right? Not when the text I believe in says differently (1 Corinthians 15):
So how am I supposed to believe in God if he doesn't show himself??? But in the midst of this something else was going on in my mind. The fact was that I had really grown spiritually lately. Not the cheesy, "Oh God is still working on me." No my life has really gotten better and both my actions and my thoughts are reflecting it (believe it or not for those who know me - but I know it for myself). But this was tearing at me because I had spent years praying for something to change me. But it was not until I started praying, reading my Bible regularly, having accountability, and being more vulnerable was I able to grow. I thought back on the nights I would cry out to God to change me but I was not willing to take the first step and take action. But shouldn't the great God of the universe make the first step? Shouldn't he transform my heart so that I would really want to change? I know that God wants me to be involved and all that - but I couldn't believe how God could let me suffer all that time and not take action himself.
By this time I was nearly ready to quit. And you might think I would have stopped this dangerous train of thought - taking it as an "attack from the devil." But that seemed too dishonest at the time. So instead I started thinking about what it would mean to give up my faith. It would mean that I would probably have to leave my school, a seminary. I would have to tell my parents and friends. I was afraid that leaving the faith would cause others in my family to leave as well- and I would end up being hated. My whole career would change. I was planning to write books about how to become a better person of faith! How ironic! It felt like so much of my self was dripping away. And why not? Being a Christian has been a huge part of my life.
But then some hope! No not from God. I realized that I could keep going to church. I liked church: the music, the friends, the encouragement, and the accountability. I liked living by the Christian ethic. I wouldn't give up my faith for sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I didn't want an excuse to sin. I simply wanted to be free from my mind-constricting faith in a non-existent God. And then I thought about a book: Why I Left the Church. It would be my autobiography. I was starting to feel a new purpose in life and it was to open Christians minds to the ridiculousness of their faith.
But as you have already read, the subject is why I decided not to renounce my faith. It wasn't by divine revelation. God didn't talk in a booming voice to me. But my dad had been watching TV and had flipped the channel to a show with Dr. Gene Scott, a Biblical expert from Stanford. He was sharing on how we know that Jesus was resurrected. And, as the passage above says, that's where it all comes down to. I won't go into all the details but basically we know that he was resurrected because his disciples all split off and all but one ended up dying for saying that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God. And how ridiculous is it to say that a guy who had died was God??? But these people went to the grave out of a deep respect for Christ and a desire to prove his identity.
Well let's just say that the message hit me. I went to my room and sat down to pray. And it felt like someone was listening once again. So in the matter of 24 hours I went from doubting God's existence to nearly renouncing my faith to being sure once again that God is real. Since then I feel like my faith was completely torn down. It's now being rebuilt. Other things are starting to make more sense. I talked to one person in the midst of my doubting. He told me that I would come out with a stronger faith, never himself doubting that I would give up my faith (even though I felt certain that I was going to). He is being shown right.
What has the experience taught me? Well first of all it was refreshing to finally come out and be honest about my doubts. Whenever I had doubts before I would typically censor them so they would come out one at a time. But being honest was what allowed me to really understand the reality of Jesus' work. Secondly I learned I have a lot of anger towards God. I discovered that because I feel like I've been dealt a raw deal at times, I just do not trust God. Then I learned that my emotions can really focus my thoughts. Despite the fact that I do have evidence for the presence of God, my anger just made me focus on the negative experiences so that I could justify leaving God.
So now I am Christian. I feel more confident that God exists. I am even starting to believe that it was Him who started to change me. But I know that I need to stay honest. I have to doubt and be real to be a person of faith. Otherwise my faith is useless.
Just about a week ago I nearly renounced Christianity. I don't say this lightly or jokingly. In fact, the experience was really scary for me. The thoughts had struck me at church on the day before Easter. The direct reason was hearing the pastor talk about a passage in 1 Corinthians 15. But it was a long time coming. I remember once telling someone that I would renounce Christianity if I was ever convinced it was false. But lately I had been questioning that statement. Why? Because even if it weren't true, I think I would still want the community, the purpose, the ethical guidelines. In short, I liked being a Christian regardless of whether or not it was true.
That's no problem right? Not when the text I believe in says differently (1 Corinthians 15):
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.If it isn't true, my faith is worthless. I had reached the breaking point. What did I do? I started to think about some of the apologetics arguments - how can things become better by random chance, how can matter create itself, and that there is evidence for a "young earth." But I had never been impressed with apologetics. In fact I was quite frustrated with some of them for their lack of understanding of evolution. I then thought about how centuries ago people could attribute to God much more of the universe. They couldn't understand rain, solar systems, mental illness, and many other things. These are things which we have a naturalistic understanding of - we know how they work. And because we know how they work, we don't really see God in them like they did before.
So how am I supposed to believe in God if he doesn't show himself??? But in the midst of this something else was going on in my mind. The fact was that I had really grown spiritually lately. Not the cheesy, "Oh God is still working on me." No my life has really gotten better and both my actions and my thoughts are reflecting it (believe it or not for those who know me - but I know it for myself). But this was tearing at me because I had spent years praying for something to change me. But it was not until I started praying, reading my Bible regularly, having accountability, and being more vulnerable was I able to grow. I thought back on the nights I would cry out to God to change me but I was not willing to take the first step and take action. But shouldn't the great God of the universe make the first step? Shouldn't he transform my heart so that I would really want to change? I know that God wants me to be involved and all that - but I couldn't believe how God could let me suffer all that time and not take action himself.
By this time I was nearly ready to quit. And you might think I would have stopped this dangerous train of thought - taking it as an "attack from the devil." But that seemed too dishonest at the time. So instead I started thinking about what it would mean to give up my faith. It would mean that I would probably have to leave my school, a seminary. I would have to tell my parents and friends. I was afraid that leaving the faith would cause others in my family to leave as well- and I would end up being hated. My whole career would change. I was planning to write books about how to become a better person of faith! How ironic! It felt like so much of my self was dripping away. And why not? Being a Christian has been a huge part of my life.
But then some hope! No not from God. I realized that I could keep going to church. I liked church: the music, the friends, the encouragement, and the accountability. I liked living by the Christian ethic. I wouldn't give up my faith for sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I didn't want an excuse to sin. I simply wanted to be free from my mind-constricting faith in a non-existent God. And then I thought about a book: Why I Left the Church. It would be my autobiography. I was starting to feel a new purpose in life and it was to open Christians minds to the ridiculousness of their faith.
But as you have already read, the subject is why I decided not to renounce my faith. It wasn't by divine revelation. God didn't talk in a booming voice to me. But my dad had been watching TV and had flipped the channel to a show with Dr. Gene Scott, a Biblical expert from Stanford. He was sharing on how we know that Jesus was resurrected. And, as the passage above says, that's where it all comes down to. I won't go into all the details but basically we know that he was resurrected because his disciples all split off and all but one ended up dying for saying that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God. And how ridiculous is it to say that a guy who had died was God??? But these people went to the grave out of a deep respect for Christ and a desire to prove his identity.
Well let's just say that the message hit me. I went to my room and sat down to pray. And it felt like someone was listening once again. So in the matter of 24 hours I went from doubting God's existence to nearly renouncing my faith to being sure once again that God is real. Since then I feel like my faith was completely torn down. It's now being rebuilt. Other things are starting to make more sense. I talked to one person in the midst of my doubting. He told me that I would come out with a stronger faith, never himself doubting that I would give up my faith (even though I felt certain that I was going to). He is being shown right.
What has the experience taught me? Well first of all it was refreshing to finally come out and be honest about my doubts. Whenever I had doubts before I would typically censor them so they would come out one at a time. But being honest was what allowed me to really understand the reality of Jesus' work. Secondly I learned I have a lot of anger towards God. I discovered that because I feel like I've been dealt a raw deal at times, I just do not trust God. Then I learned that my emotions can really focus my thoughts. Despite the fact that I do have evidence for the presence of God, my anger just made me focus on the negative experiences so that I could justify leaving God.
So now I am Christian. I feel more confident that God exists. I am even starting to believe that it was Him who started to change me. But I know that I need to stay honest. I have to doubt and be real to be a person of faith. Otherwise my faith is useless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)