There's No I in B_ble Study

WARNING:: This is an especially long, and not entirely entertaining, post pertaining to a subject of some sensativity, and woefully inadequate nuance.  For those few who do bother to read it, even in part, please take it as it is intended - an expression of personal understanding, in no way intended to suggest the propagation of these ideas, but simply the sharing of one particular perspective.

This evening I was approached by a kind looking young man as I headed out of Columbia's campus after a *thrilling* day at the CU library.

He made eye contact, which in NYC signifies either desperation or dimentia, and smiled as he stepped directly into my walking path.

"Hey, how are doing?"

Unsure if I knew this random person from one of my classes (I mostly just pay attention to the prof,  leaving in doubt whether or not I actually "know" other students), I tried to play it off and kick the warning alarms back to neutral.

"Just fine, you?" I parlayed as I kept walking, now a little to the left of my previous vector.

"I'm great, can I interest you in joining us for a Bible study this evening?"

Great, one of Those.

"Thanks for asking, I'm going to pass, but you enjoy."

"Aw, come on, why not?"  This is key.  These people know you aren't just going to say yes, they are not out here (with some regularity) to actually get people into their bible study, they're here to engage in conversation, ostensibly to eventually make people realize they do not, indeed, have any good reason not to be in Bible study.  I cut to the quick.

"Because every time I've tried to study the Bible, it's only made my faith weaker, and I really don't have that much left to spare."

I'm sure he had some trite response at the ready, but I was done with the conversation, and continued on my way, bundled up against an unusual March snowstorm.  The short walk home, and slightly longer wait for my take-out Chinese food, gave me the opportunity to reflect on what had just happened, how I had reacted, and what my relationship to faith is, made all the more relevant by my recently-intensified academic study of a less-familiar faith, Islam, and the cultural and political activities of its adherents.

I've no desire to make this blog strech beyond the limits of even the infinite scroll bar, so let me be ridiculously brief, and correspondingly blunt.

I was raised in a "christian" household, by which I mean that I was taught all the normal moral values, attended church services, sunday schools, bible studies, and youth groups, all with the purpose of strengthening my knowledge of the (Methodist) Christian religion, and presumably my faith in its dogma.

My entire extended family was part of the church, and it formed a nexus of my social/familial upbringing.  I was baptised, went through confirmation, and even earned a Boy Scout religious award.   On at least one occasion, I delivered a sermon to the congregation (as I recall, it was, ironically, lambasting the hypocritical "Easter Christians" who only showed up at church on holidays).  

Point is, I was inundated in the river of religiousity, but I was (pardon the pun) damnably curious, and persistenly rational.  In a course of events which I'm sure will be very familiar to a great slice of my "generation," I found myself drifting away from Christianity despite, or perhaps even because of, my efforts to understand and embrace it.  I believed that God called us to question our religion, so as to strengthen our faith.  But I never found satisfactory answers, and my faith withered (on the vine - to keep up the punnery).

This was no fault of my instructors, pastors or parents, nor a sign of any particular 'independence' inherent in myself.   Rather, it was a lack on my part - a complete, or at least deficient, capacity to have faith in the religion I was presented with.  

I want to be clear - I have never seen rationalism or "intelligence" as being in any way contrary or hostile to religion / faith.  I greatly respect people who have faith, and while I could only maintain my religion through enforced ignorance, I do not assume the same problem confronts other "religious" people, who I do not take to be ignorant by default.  I just cannot balance the world as I came to know it with that presented in the Bible.

Now, I'm only human; God's reason need not be apparent to me, sure.  I know.  Or at least, I recognize the logic of that argument, but it's the same as heliocentrism.  I could be told that the Sun is the center of the universe, and I don't honestly know enough about astronomy to counter that.  But when I hear a different argument, supported by other facts I can't directly prove or disprove, if it sounds more reasonable, then I believe that.  I'm critical, I'm rational, but mixed up in all of that is a degree of "faith" which is not religious.  My point is that I can have faith in many things I don't see, but apparently not God.

So it's not that I'm committed to Neitzsche, but more that the "death of god" argument, or more accurately, the social construction of religion, remains for me more plausible, a stronger argument, than any of the other alternatives based on the social / historical factors that I'm willing to accept on faith.

I do find it laughable that people think Science is killing religion.  If anything, all Science tries to do is display the mechanisms by which an Intelligent Design is at work.  That Design is called Evolution, and the sooner religious factions accept this one minor point, they will realize that the real trouble isn't the study of the natural world, but the various social sciences, which present the real threat.

I was never swayed by whether or not a Leviathan was in fact a dinosaur or not, or the exact age of the planet.  On the other hand, that the majority of our planet doesn't believe in "the One True God," or more accurately, that in even recently centuries, billions of people believed in a different "God(s)" was world-shaking.  That all of Christianity, itself an obvious conglomeration from various pre-christian sources, represents only a small fraction of the intellectual development of mankind means that belief in Christianity, even in its most general terms, is a minority.

That's fine and good if you're devout - willing to cling to your beliefs in the minority because you are so confident of their rectitude, but what if your faith was based on a greater assumption of pre-existing wisdom and tradition?  What if you accepted Christ as your savior because you assumed that the world you were brought up in was representative of the culmination of human knowledge?  Surrounded by christians, good, loving people for the most part, your faith was reinforced by this buffer, but only so long as you stayed within the buffer.

Not to pick on minorities, but it resonates with the extreme Mormon enclaves.  I wasn't raised on a rural compound, but I did grow up in a world where the most "diverse" person I was intimately familiar with was my (reform) Jewish best friend, who did much to broaded my perspective, but ultimately reinforced much of what I assumed, being himself a religious minority subsumed within (my) christian majority, and also being in large agreement about much of the pre-christian scriptures.

What happened?  Was it just learning that defeated my religion?  Learning about the world, history, great civilizations of art, morals and culture that existed before, after, and generally without the Good Word?  Was it Catholic high school, in which dogma was so forcibly shoved down my throat that my only option was to reject, or at least question it?

In its vaguest terms, I still think Christianity has much to recommend it, both as a set of social instructions / morals and a method of social control.  Further, I recognize that the intense indoctrination and familiarity I have with the scripture and the intellectual constructions it creates are not something I would be able to divorce myself from, even with vigorous effort.

The funniest dilemma for me is the rare occasion when someone actually asks me if I'm a Christian.  It really stumps me.

Do I believe that there was a fully-divine/fully-human, 200% being named Jesus Christ who was the son of God the Creator, born of the virgin Mary, who came to earth some 1,988 years ago, walked around one of the smallest countries on earth for a few years, was arrested and killed by one of the ten largest empires in recorded history, and ascended in physical form to join his father and sit at the Right hand accompanied by the even less-defined Holy Spirit, and from thence to sit in judgement, while simultaneously being a guide and personal advocate via silent prayer and ritual worship?

No. By this litmus test I am 0% Christian.

But as an identity, a cultural stamp; as a white, "Heartland American," I cannot deny that my self-image is that of a "Christian" as I understand it from observing others who take this same title.  A liberal, progressive, one to be sure, but closer in most ways to an "Okie from Muskokie" than a "Sheik of Araby" (thanks, slightly-offensive pop songs).

It's rapidly becoming cliche'd to be an Atheist, and the more New-Age definitions of being "spiritual" or eternally Agnostic, I find equally distasteful.  Truth be told, it is the same rational faculties and curiousity which told me I'm not a Christian that definitively rule me out of any of these vaguely-demarcated camps.  This does not make me special or unique, as I believe a great many, perhaps even the majority, of my peers are in the same boat, but it does confound me when asked to identify myself as "Christian" or not.

or when someone courtesously invites me to Bible Study.

And shouldn't it be pronounced "Bibble" anyway?

Sorry for the novel.

Ayn Rand can eat her cold Atheist heart out.

Weber

::(lame) Texpatriot