Comments on: Christianity and its cultured adherents

By: Mark Goode

Mark Goode — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:22:58 +0000

Having moved away from my Christian heritage, I find it difficult to relate to a debate about what it means to be truly Christian. After 40+ years of experiencing a broad spectrum of answers to that question, I settled on two other metrics that are most personally relevant: “What is transformational?” And “What is transcendent?”

Answering the first question forces me to come to terms with the daily impact of whatever spiritual journey I choose. I have wasted countless hours and words talking about God only to discover that my life was no different after all. John quotes Jesus as promising that belief in him would lead to “eternal life”, which is better translated as “living a life like God.” From time to time I meet people who live in a way that seems God-like. Only occasionally are they participants in any form of Christian religion.

Wrestling with the second question moves me out of a completely rational and materialistic space. It is possible to enjoy a measure of personal transformation and yet never directly encounter the Divine (yes, I am still a theist but don’t ask me to prove his/her existence . . . :-)) But personal and social transformation that results from a transcendent encounter or a life that engages the transcendent on a routine basis is somehow different. It’s hallmark (to me anyway) is love. And for reasons that are difficult to articulate, that strikes me as a high, if not the highest, value.

So, I guess I’ve capitulated to my cultural surroundings. No church on Sunday mornings; rather, a good cup of coffee and the New York Times. OK, I do say a prayer as the day begins . . .

By: fwschmidt

fwschmidt — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:43:16 +0000

Rick, thanks for this. Karen rightly notes, as do all of the great mystics of the Christian tradition, that we move from words, images, and analogies to that which cannot be articulated when we talk about God. There are those who pit the one against the other insisting that everything we say about God must be measured and qualified. Others in a reaction to what they consider a stifling orthodoxy insist that we can say little at all with certainty about God. I am inclined to believe that we need experiences of God that are framed both by words and by silence, which is why we sometimes “think” ourselves into new understandings of God and at other times, “act” ourselves into those understandings. In both cases our understanding is always fragmentary and incomplete — that, it seems to me, is inescapably a part of what it means to be creature, rather than creator.

By: Rick Q.

Rick Q. — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:45:47 +0000

Great post! The balancing act is a conundrum for liberal minded Christians but one that must be faced. I am finding myself drawn to Karen Armstrong’s attempt to find this balance between the positivists that Hitchens and Dawkins love to beat up on and the “in name only” type to which you refer. In her latest, The Case for God, she argues that it is the religious practices that performatively move us beyond conceptual thought and language into adoration of that which cannot be named. It seems that here is a place where the cross and the crucified God must remain central to any authentic Christian faith and practice. I look forward to your future blogs!