How Do You Understand?

Another blogger got me thinking about how we understand the world. I didn't realize when I responded to her that my response was based on different emphasises of the Quadralateral.

Do you understand your faith by doctrine? Do you "take by faith", the doctrines in the creeds, without tearing apart the doctrinal truths to see if they correlate to sicentific inquiry? Or do you understand your faith as a lifestyl with others is lived out within the community of faith? The convictions that bind you together are those that define "your world" and sometimes it clouds your "sight" to see or understand differences in approach to faith, after all, these have given their life to these "commitments" and "values". Or do you think that faith is more about understanding and knowing God?

Doctrine is based on a tradtionalist's view, while lifestyle is an experiential view. Reason upholds a theological view, and Scripture is multivaried, depending on which view is primarily driving "faith".

But, though these views all define different people of faith, there are others that define their faith apart from belief systems, and institutions. These people would be understood as agnostic or atheistic in their belief.

The agnostic holds that though we seek God, we cannot know him, because God is beyond our capacity to understand and grasp. One must live within the contexts that define one's life and understand that all men have sought to understand and explain God, throughout the Ages. These are the scientifically minded, as they re-define God, or explain things in "new ways". The Academy defines the faith of the agnostic, as the Academy helps to keep reason humble, because of the vastness and diversity of human knowledge.

The atheists doesn't seek to understand or define God, as God is irrelvant, in their book, in helping to solve the world's problems. These like to be pragmatic in their approach to life and its problems in this world. They do not like the "sweet by and by", or "pie in the sky" promises or imaginings. But, these can be arrogant in their approach to life when it comes to their own reason, and to people of faith. And this is when problems occur in structuring government or laws that allow diversity of views that don't discriminate as to difference.

The agnostic is really atheistic in practicality because the basis of understanding the world is not faith, but the disciplines. Those that seek to understand "faith concerns" will study the philosophy of religion, or history of traditions, or religious studies, etc. And these will find in their "camp" people of faith and people without faith ( in the traditional sense).

So, how do you understand the world?

The Sacred and Secular Faith

Religion exists because we define and distinguish between the sacred and secular. But, what if everything is seen as sacred, if used in the proper way? Isn't this view looking at life as graced?

Why do the religious have to make distinctions? Is it because the religious love to think they are especially special? Ot that their group is more holy or 'true" to Christian faith than another? Are these distinctions because this is how every group defines themselves...in contrast to another group?

Why do the religious need to feel special? Is it because they were never special in their families of origin? Is it because this is what they have always been taught and have always believed?

I think that evangelical faith is taught and caught, but it is mainly emotionally driven and experienctially focused. There is no real substance to evangelical faith. And evangelicals believe that this is good, because reason is suspect.

I remember taking a course 10 years ago. The professor was teaching on "biblical Chsitianity" and I remember wondering why he added "biblical" to Christian, as if there was any other kind of Christian.

This course set "secular philosophy" over against "biblical revelation". Tertullion's "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem" was the 'battle cry of this course. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church", etc. This view sacralizes sacrifice, and marginalizes philosophy.

This view sets up a dichotomy to faith and reason. This is supernaturalism's strength and many denominations believe in this type of 'Christian faith'.

Another view is that nature itself is graced. This view does not see human nature as totally depraved and in need of supernatural rescue, but a deprivation of nature that needs nurture and grace. One is a Reformed Protestant view, while the other is a more Catholic view.

As I have been thinking about faith and reason, I have come to the conclusion that there can be no universal way that an individual develops faith. But, I think that if one comes to faith through personal experience, where revelation was of primary importance, then there is need for a develpment of reaon's need of development. Reason can be the friend of faith, because it is grounded in the "real world".

Students that come to our university can sometimes be idealistic and think that there is something "more" special about a radical faith that is separated from the 'real world" or separated from rationale or reason. This is where I believe that professors and mentors can help these young adults to understand their faith in a broader way. This is important, otherwise, some may never develop their unique gifts and much would be lost to the world.

Evangelicals can be prime culprits of this kind of thinking because evangelicalism is grounded in experience and revelation, at the expense of reason and traditon.

I think the answer is understanding how reason can be grounded in the real world and be faithful to faith, is found in our form of government, a Representative Republic. And this grounding allows faith individual expression and conscience, while the proper use of power is balanced across three branches of government. The individual has a choice or voice in the process of their representation. Otherwise, one is determined under a "Sovereign" supernaturalistic, super-intending God, without personal choice. And choice is of primary importance in the theme of 'freedom'. And freedom is what justice is about.

Today's Talk on "Experience"

Today's talk at our honors forum was made by one of our religion professors. He admitted that his conviction had been based on reason, but recently had been "converted" to experience.

As he was talking, all I could think of was how anyone in this type of climate could survive such "supernaturalism". There would be no way to gauge how one "heard from God". I think this is the epitome of cultish mentality and could lead to abuse of power, as well as "self-delusion".

A interpretive "community of faith" was the answer given to my concerns. This suggests that faith trumps reason altogether. Quakers, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, as well as Holiness traditions hold to this type of "mentality".

The Holiness tradition, which is the tradition of this professor and the university, believes in a second work of grace, called "entire sanctification", where sin is eradicated out of the believer. When this experience happens, then there is "new insight" and understanding of Scripture that is not dependent on academic training. I started to shiver.

When I questioned how one could gauge self-deception and pride, the professor admitted that pride was indeed a problem! Pride is not a "little problem", it is a great problem, because pride is not open to another's opinion, and especially when they feel "spritiually superior" and have "heard from God". These are the things of which great cult leaders are made.

Another gauge was the rule of faith and the rule of love. But, actively loving someone takes personal knowledge, and even with personal knowledge, sometimes, even with my husband, I miss it. So, how is one to gauge if one is motivated with a right-directed "love"?

For instance, if these believe that Abraham's sacrifice was the epitome of faith and must be demanded of another as proof of entire sanctification, then they might bring immense pain and heart-ache in the "Name of God". This is nothing short of cruel, mis-guided and mis-informed fanaticism. Or what if these believed that one must "cut off his hand, or pluch out his eye" because of it possibly leading to "sin". I have been in these environments and have "submitted" to such superstition. I threw away a silver bracelet that my husband gave me for an anniversary because of an "authority" telling me it was an amulet".

I cannot agree or defend such "faith", as it is undefendable. It is based on personal/communal experience combined. This is nothing short of what soldiers experience in their bonding with others in their squad/platoon/brigade. There is nothing significantly "spiritual" happening here, as humans are social animals, that will experience persecuting situations as a bonding experience.

The Quadralateral allows for more than experience. It is based on reason, as well as experience, tradition and scripture. I find that tradition is culture and scripture is context specific, while experience can be unifying. Reason, on the other hand, can be unifying but most often can bring great division as we interpret within our own specific frames and express ourselves in unique ways.

Those that believe in such understandings and experiences, are seeking after a unifying experience and believe it is God. But it is really interpreted as God, because of the context. In another context, it would be called a "country club", or any other kind of social group.

Perhaps, I am an Christian Atheist (or a Atheist Believer)

Humans are born within different contexts, which create the identification factors within the child. But, as the child matures and is exposed to a bigger frame of reference, the young adult can choose where he commits. Humans love to identify themselves, as we are social animals, and we "create" our identity by what we commit to. The groups that we commit to, are also, reflective of the values we hold most dear, as reason is developed within these social frames. This is why academic freedom is to be valued. While academic freedom is a value to uphold in allowing the free discourse and discovery within the frame of "reason", it cannot be absolute. Why?Because reason itself is limited within their frames of reference, too, as well, as understanding knowledge's humility, that all is not known yet.....

Atheists are anti-theist, that means "without God". Could atheists stand in opposition to "one form of God"? Thus, it would underwrite and support the "human". I think that an atheist believer is just a "anti-theist" that believes that being human is distinct from being an animal. But, what is a "human"? We cannot reduce the Human to an animal without doing disservice to reason. At the same time, we cannot support the difference (of the human from animal) without some understanding of "god".

Some would argue that belief is at issue when one understands "god" (the religious realm). Others would argue behavior, which would underline the political realm, while still others would argue that the belonging is what makes for the social realm. I believe that all of these must be affirmed for one to be totally human, i.e. the spiritual, the political and the social.

As humans are whole beings, we must affirm all of these "parts" if the whole person is to be "whole". How does one understand "god" and by what authority? Where does one choose to commit, and do service?

If we use the Quadralateral, we understand that the atheist could be believers if they just understood that reason's authority is limited within their specified disciplines. And yet, the social and political realm of the Church must understand that the text and tradition is also limited, which leaves the experience of the individual to determine his own destiny within the bounds of conscience, which is the realm of history....

There is no universal "hope" in the eschaton, but that of the individual's conscience within a specific time frame. There is no universal moral model, nor is there a universal understanding as to "god", as these are contextually bound. There is only a universal form of government which allows freedom and justice for all...

The Church and The State

I have been thinking about the interface of Church and State, lately.

Today First Thing on the Square had a post on "The Real Problem With Bishops". In this entry, it was argued that Biden, Pelosi, and other Catholics in public office needed to represent the Catholic Church's stance on social issues. One bishop even took the stance of denying communion to politicians.

This intrigues me. On one hand, the Church wants public officials to represent Them in public office, excluding everyone else's conscience, while on the other hand, this one bishop felt that the political position itself was 'unholy" enough to deny communion.

I have also read where there is academic understaking of how the Jews/Judiasm identified themselves in ancient history.

Why all of this quadmire? Because the Church can't define itself in today's climate of globalization, and individuality.

While I can understand and agree that the Church on one hand must define what it means to be a part of the Church, how does that affect a member's participation in the "world"?

I think Niebuhr's model of the cultural interface, and the Quadralateral hold some promise of understanding and starting the dialogue across the spectrum of beliefs in the Church.

Niebuhr understood the call to the Church to be "in the world but not of it" in four ways....
The Christ IN Culture is the Scriptural part of the Quadralateral. This represents the Christ figure's role in the world. This challenge is not without understanding the Church's place within the Jewish Tradition and understanding its connection to other religious traditions.

The Christ OF Culture is Tradition's role, as far as understanding the values of the Church.

The Christ ABOVE Culture is Experience's role, in affirming that God is still above the world.

The Christ AGAINST Culture is Reason's role of critique in and of the Church.

While understanding that the Church must have a voice, the Church must alos allow difference to other voices. This means that there would be a stark difference between the Church and Islam in regards to "Law" and opennes to other traditions, understandings, etc. The Church is not called to oppress in the name of religion, nor to become a Kingdom of this World and its Systems and understandings of itself. The Church is not God, but an instrument of God.

The Church, as a political institution, should not forget its first mission and call to alleviate the suffering in the world. This first call is multi-dimensional.
Any Christian is called to this position,.
The individual's alleviation of suffering is found within the Church's doors, whether in counselling, charitable service, pastoral ministry.

The Church should also not forget it's call to permeate the public discourse so that its voice is heard loudly, boldly and clearly. These are those whose call is to the political or public service areas of mission and service. These are offices of public service.

In a free society, such as America, the Church should not just beome political in its understandings of itself. A political institution does not bring a redemptive message to those who have no hope. This mission is a domestic and foreign mission of charity, and human rights. Therefore, the Church and State should remain in separate spheres of influence, otherwise, those who disagree in regards to conscience, could not disagree, for fear of intimidation from the Church. The Church should always have an open ear to others.

The Church's message must be open to change, so that its message is accommodating to reason's challenges. Reason is the Church's friend, for reason is universal in scope and should be a mission of development in education.

The sacred and secular realms should understand themselves as opened before each other and influencing the other in growth and pertinence and relavance to society. The American Experiment is, after all, a unique one.

The New Theological Frame Must Be Inclusive of All Four Quadrants of the Quadralateral

Karl Barth was a way for theology to address modernity's criticism. While modernity needs the transcendent, the transcendent needs the grounding of modernity's critique. Today's post-modernity brings us to experiential faith, which is not grounded at all.

What do I mean by this? Post-modernity has struggled to find a reason for the hope of Christian faith. Stanley Grenz grounded his understanding in the community of God. The "redeemed" were to exemplify Christ's life. The basis of "fact" was developed upon the Trinity. But, in actuality it is another type of existentialism, as it applies to the organizational structure of the Church. And the Trinity itself is a philosophical understanding of God. It is not a fact, but a representation of fact.

Fact is based on science and the historical and social sciences should give new insight into what happened in the development of Christian faith, which was grounded within a Jewish context. Judiasm itself must be understood. And then, Judiasm must be understood within the historical development of World Religions, or Traditions, which are representative of cultures.

Civilizations are representative of cultures, which are understood by the laws, values and customs that define them. And people are constructed within these contexts. Understanding other cultures is necessary in international relations, diplomacy and the globalized market. Hopefully, international law will develop a format for businesses to be boundaried by proper behavior within the global market and economy.

Creating a Global Christian Faith

There is a need for a new paradigm to understand Christian faith, with postmodernity's challenge. While we must not allow postmodernity to undermine the Christian faith altogether, there are valid points that must be affirmed..



1. The limit to all knowledge and objective understanding to truth claims.

2. The need for a critical realism.

3. The individual and context as "beginning and end-point" of faith.



While these "truths" are valid in postmodernity's critique, we must affirm, at the same time;



1. The need for an apology or reason for the faith.

2. The need to understand the humanity of Jesus, and the ethical dimensions of the O.T.

3. The individual's need for "community", while affirming the individual's convictions.



Jesus, as the perfect man, represents God to those who are outside the religious and political power structures. What can this mean except that God is "for" ALL of humanity.



A Christian humanism (experience)- While the Christian humanist would begin their understanding of faith through experience, it would not limit their understanding of Jesus' life as witnessed by Scripture in communal commitment.

A Christian universalism (tradition)- The Christian universalist would affirm the cultural and historical aspects of other religious traditions, not undermining the individual's identity, but at the same time expanding the traditional understanding based on Scripture.

A Christian agnosticism (reason)-The Academy, whose "world" inhabits the arena of the mind would use their expertise to challenge the student in faith formation.

A Christian fundamentalism (text)-Perhaps this is where the challenge of "change" is most resisted. Fundamentalism understands their position on Scripture as the only means of understanding all of life.



These "parts" of the Quadralateral (reason, tradition, Scripture, and experience) are points of entry to understanding Christian faith. The methodology to understanding faith is an approach to ethics.