Popularly known as the "L" in "TULIP", limited atonement is an idea that's tough for me to swallow. If God is all-powerful, then God has the power to atone for the sins of all humanity. If God is all-loving, then God would want to save his beloved from the distance of hell. If there is limited atonement, then God can't be all-loving or all-powerful. That is the logic I can't get past. Thus, I constantly find myself floating back to the idea of universalism - an idea I've been indulging in from time to time since I was little. Thinking about God's love and power being so powerful to save everyone(screw justice), regardless of faith or works (inclusively), makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
Too bad feeling warm and fuzzy isn't the point of religion - there's also legitimatizing social arrangements, promoting social unity, providing meaning and encouraging a sense of belonging (thanks sociology of religion). But seriously, that's another issue my thought train has been running into - religion, and specifically Christianity, makes a lot of sense through a perspective of functionalism. It seems so logical that religion exists to complete the functions listed above. I also know people are socialized into their faith - the whole "parents' faith" shabang. Well, maybe not parents' faith, it could be grand parents' faith. Or great grandparents faith. Or great great grandparent's faith, or which ever ascentor converted first. In any case, most Christians are introduced to their religion through their parents, sunday school teacher, or maybe school - right along with all the social norms and whatnot that we are socialized with; I was taught to be a good Christian like I was taught to be a good American.
Throw in some other ideas that give me pause (the issue of Lost in Translation, except instead of Bill Murray in Japan, its the Bible in the past two millenias, the neurology of a Christian spiritual experience isn't different from the neurology of a Buddhist spiritual experience ect, ect) and we have some bonafide doubt and searching.
I was reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (*coughsexist*) awhile back, and I came across a passage (which I'm too lazy to look up) that said something about hearing what the Bible said about issues instead of using the pieces of the Bible to support previously held social and political beliefs. I then realized that I'm more confident in my social, political, and ethical convictions than in my spiritual and religious convictions, which is a fun little paradox, since my social, political and ethical convictions are (I like to think) derived from my religion.
I'd like to continue this conversation, but I have class tomorrow and am going to bed, so I'll leave with this thought:
I feel as I grow into the academic life that lays ahead for me, I'm like Jack and Locke in Lost, I feel a conflict looming between faith and learning. It's not as though I believe that the Bible necessarily conflicts with science (unless you take it literally) its more like the world makes a lot more sense to me through an academic or scientific perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
dogg, love to see the brain turned on! i have to believe that if God is the source of all truth, then we shouldn't be afraid to seek it out. it's the people who don't doubt and don't question that scare me.
your tulip musings are dead on. another piece of that puzzle is the related issue of hell. some decent thoughts about that on Beim's most recent post.
also, don't miss the irony that Calvin probably wouldn't be too hot on the whole TULIP thing that his followers came up with. he was first and foremost a biblical theologian, which means that he holds on to paradox and mystery. as "systematic" as his Institutes is, his theology does not fit into the rigid systems the later reformers came up with.
about the social/functionalist take on religion. those things may be true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the "other" aspects of religion (like in Christianity - Jesus' teachings) are not true as well.
also, a red flag should always come up our minds whenever we hear generalizations about the Christian religion that leave out Jesus Christ. what his followers have done may not be an accurate representation of his teachings. Christianity is easy to dismiss and even revile; Jesus is not. read the stuff in red - he is a radical challenging the status quo and the power structures in society. his call to righteousness is only as impactful as his understanding of righteousness is understood. it is absolutely shameful how poorly Christians understand the one they acknowledge as Lord.
ps: don't judge Lewis too harshly just because he was a sexist. that doesn't mean he can't have some good points. if we threw out people's ideas b/c of character flaws or moral failings, we would be left with very few ideas. JW
I absolutely agree with all of that. I just feel like the more I learn about the world, the more I question my faith.
Post a Comment