It was while discussing with an older man who had come along to try to help me see the error of my ways that it became clear. It seems to be a generational thing to some extent, as it is always those of more mature years who exhort me not to think. Those of my own age think of that as something a bit theoretical, and are very happy to concede that thinking is in fact necessary. They are not blind to the problems of the brethren and their position, and realise that unless one is prepared to challenge elements that seem wrong, no progress will be made towards the ideal.
In fact, such brethren will admit to sharing a lot of my feelings about many things, while firmly differing on the conclusions.
But the older element see things differently from the base upwards. For them, my clarity of mind is an obstacle to overcome, a burden laid on me to make things difficult. I am told that thinking will always lead me astray, and to rely on faith instead.
And that's the point. If you start by assuming that logic will lead you to the conclusion that something doesn't make sense, which is the more sensible belief: that there is something mysterious (the religious word is "ineffable", I think) behind it that man is not intended to understand, or that it simply doesn't make sense?
At which point I am sorrowfully told that I have allowed the devil to get hold of my thoughts, while being assured that the statement is not meant personally.
I don't object to paradox and glorious ambiguity in christian doctrine - it's pretty much built-in, and I rather enjoy that. But I do think it's arrogant to apply the same reasoning to rules that people are expected to live their lives by. If you're instructing someone to do something at a cost, you should be able to back it up, not just fall back on "thou shalt not question, for this is the eleventh commandment".
8 comments:
Ah, surivor, beware of generational generalisations: I agree with you.
Amen Robert! And, awomen too (<;!
The creator gave you a mind. It would be insulting to refuse to use it.
My generalisation only extends to the brethren community. Which, remember, is a good many decades behind the one outside, so that people my ages share the attitudes of non-brethren octagenarians, while the over-sixties are stuck with Victorian thinking. You may laugh, but it's true.
They tried the “Don’t think; depend on faith alone” ploy with me too.
The main trouble with that dictum is that you have to do a bit of thinking anyway to work out what or whom to have faith in. For example, if you decide by faith to accept a holy book in its entirety, you first have to decide what holy book, and what version of it. If you do that without thinking, you might (horror of horrors) pick the wrong holy book. You can’t get away from the need to think.
Also, experience has convinced most of us that logic and reason have been jolly useful tools for elucidating the truth about most things. Why should spiritual truth be different? Are they trying to say spiritual truth is uniquely illogical? I hardly think so.
Faith can mean a passionate commitment to a way of life, and I have seen that sort of faith move metaphorical mountains, but what use is the kind of ‘faith’ that just amounts to accepting anything you are told without evidence? That is hardly faith. That is just immaturity. And most religious con-men like to encourage it in their victims.
Yes, yes, survivor, I was only trying to be funny. Perhaps I should take a leaf from Eric and use smiley faces, cheers, Robert.
Sorry. I'm sensitive to accusations of discrimination.
And yes, I agree that "accepting on faith" begs many questions, but it turns out to be remarkably hard to get people to see that if they are running on faith themselves.
I wonder whether it's really about the principle of exercising faith. Rather, in the EB context, it seems to be more about pragmatism. Older people who tell you not to question, but to have faith, have lived for decades within a house of fear where there was always a chance that expressing a doubt might lead to expulsion and unsustainable loss. In those circumstances a pat answer has kept them safe.
I dwell in a house of questions and queries, and don't find that at all inimical to faith. We are commanded to love God with our mind as well as our heart and soul; and Jesus was no intellectual slouch or Yes-Man. He certainly challenged the religious establishment of his day.
Post a Comment