What We Believe In, We Promote

What we believe in we promote; the Church believes in its mission for its own survival, as any entity seeks to survive. Survival is basic to humans physically, socially and psychologically, as well as businesses, States and communities. Survival is the most basic of needs.

Today's sermon was on one of the most primary needs and emphasis of evangelicalism, which is "Evangelism" (but converts are needed in all religions, if they continue to thrive and grow, unless that particular religious tradition builds itself through populating the earth and enculturating the earth in this way.) Though evangelicals don't like to think of themselves as fundamentalists, they really are, because they accept "special revelation" or a 'higher or transcendent truth". Such "truth" was what our pastor talked about today, as it is a means of "transformation".The message took a passage from Acts to suggest that Phillip was to help interpret the eunach's questions about a passage he was reading from Isaiah. This is the "mission of the church' to help others understand their lives within the context of "God's Plan" "Purpose or Vision", which is identified within "the Bible". Such a vision is about about spiritualizing one's understanding, or seeing things through "God's perspective", and surrendering one's understanding to the Magisterium, The Church's "teaching minsters". The Magisterium were the appointed leaders to "conform" converts to "correct doctrine", so that "perfection" might be attained.

The Magesterium talk about transcendent realities, that are not practical realities, except to further the Church's mission. 'Missions" are really about political realities and goals.I must give credit to our pastor, though, as he did affirm the need of "the human". He talked of the evangelical church's "sin" of not listening, or attempting to convert before building relationship, etc. But, the end goal of such relationship is still to convert and conform. "God' is still the priority of such agendas, not the person themself. (But, perhaps, I judge the pastor too harshly, as he truly believes what he preaches, I believe. And we all tend to promote what we believe in, don't we?). The person themself is the end, not "God", in my opinion. And the person, themself, is the answer to many difficulties we face in our nation presently.

The issues of peace, and virtue are Roman values that have come to impact the Church's "mission" as the Church was intially accused of creating a disturbance to peace, and were blamed for the downfall of Rome. But, today, peace and virtue are the "transforming work" of the Church. According to the "first modern historian of the Roman Empire", Edward Gibbon, Christians had lost their "civic virtue", because they were waiting to "be saved" in the next "life". And many in the Roman Empire had handed over its protection to the Praetorian Guard. A recent Time's article suggests that this is what has happened in America today. The "military class" is becoming isolated and insulated from the "power elite" and the average American citizen! Such a gap does not encourage citizenship and the larger issues of character. The Military Academy at Westpoint has as its motto; "We don't lie, cheat, or steal and we don't tolerate those who do". This is a high standard for most of the "power elite". The military is "taken for granted" but not applauded by many. In fact, many liberals think that Utopian ideals are attainable apart from realistic goals and grounded historical realities.

Our pastor's message was a message that the evangelical church wants to promote. And fortunately, in America, one can give their life to what they believe in, not what they are forced to believe!

Relationship, Values, and Integrity

Ayn Rand
The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not “selflessness” or “sacrifice,” but integrity. Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality. “The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 46

This can only be true if one values "love" as an "ultimate value". Relationship with those that have different values must be mutual compromise, or dissolving one's association to such a relationship. If the principle or value is too important to compromise without loosing "self-respect", then, compromise is asking the impossible. Self-respect is the foundation of integrity.

No one should be required to "help" in those areas they do not believe in. And no one that loves another would ask them to "help" in the areas they do not believe in.

Don't Talk to Me About "Spirit"!

On another blog site it was questioned whether "God was able to speak" to the individual. I used to believe so, but have made my commitment to doubt it, because of the horrendous atrocities I have seen and experienced in such a claim!

 How can those that  "have a personal relationship to God" be distracted from what they deem to be "true"? It is subjectivism to the extreme. But, it is personalization of myth making and meaning forming "identity". These are hard places to break apart, as they are embedded within the person himself/herself.

People do irrational things when such belief is held. I sold all my possessions, and went to a mission organization. I broke up with my boyfriend who I'd dated for 4 years. I threw away a silver bracelet that was given to me as a gift which held much meaning. I used such scriptures as "loving god before father and mother, etc." to defend my irrational behavior. I was sold out to "Christ". I had surrendered all! But, my experience is not a "lone ranger" one, many have done such things in the name of "faith".

I just heard on the news that a mother had killed her child by performing an exorcism. She had given the child some "concoction" that she thought would alleviate the child from his "demons"! The child's body was found a week later! These are not uncommon occurances, because "faith" makes one believe beyond reason. The Oklahoma bombing, the Texas military post murders, and many others are driven by strongly formed beliefs about "hearing god"! It doesn't matter whether it is a Christian community, Muslim community, Jehovah's witness community", or what, all religious communities are formed and framed by claims and rationale that frame one's "world".

Whenever such beliefs are affirmed in a community, they become self-affirming and self-fulfilling "prophecies" about reality and life itself. One cannot "see" life in any other way. Those that are so conditioned are in "cults" or in "cultish thinking". Life is only viewed in one dimensional form, or ways. It is the ONLY right way to view things.

So whenever you talk about "spirit" my antenae goes up. And the questions start. One cannot live on faith alone.

Can All We Have Be Faith?

Today's sermon was about faith in the "unseen". The scripture about the blind man being healed by Jesus was the text. The pastor's premise was that belief in the unseen world of "God" will help you "see" the unseen realities of "God".  This is faith. Indeed, it does take faith, so what does that mean? It predominately means that one bases their understanding of life and all that is on faith's premises of "text and/or tradition".

All humans have reason, but not all of us use our reasoning capacity in the same way. Those that believe based on "faith's claims" either must use their reasoning abilities to believe in Aristotle's God of the past. God is the First Cause. And even, if one suggests that God is not the first Cause, but that "God'" superintends evolution, one is still believing in a "god" outside the sphere of human reality. Then,, there are those that believe that "god is present within reality itself". Natural causes, such as man's choices are irrevocably "God's design", because God oversees the choices men make to "work all things out together for good", for those "called according to his purpose".  One still has to interpret experience by "faith" in the text and/or tradition, confining reason to an "inside' group mentality. This is called God's foreknowledge. God understands the evil choices that men will make and somehow that becomes "his will". We are to submit and obey to all circumstances, for this is the "will of God in Christ Jesus, concerning you"! (I wonder what leadership does, then? Sit back, trust "god", and obey? No, they are the ones accountable for making policy that plays into life. And leaders that do so to restrict another liberty are tyrannical.) This is why men and "god" cannot be above the law Our Constitution defines good government where each human is valued and has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Good governmen, as well as good leadership allows for individual liberty and choice of value. Good government is based on the consent of the governed.

The Text is not a supernatural "Gift that fell From heaven", but a human testimony of experience/belief. And these beliefs were based on an ancient paradigm, not a modern scientific understanding. But, just as much as the Text is not "supernatural", neither is Tradition Tradition is really history about the social and political context that formed the scripture/text itself. Church history is also within the context of a larger context of world history. Tradition is a specified history, based on the social/political history of the Church.

Faith-based reasoning isn't justifiable except to those that believe, because of its group mentality, and/or irrational claims of faith. Faith becomes only defined by one's choice of commitment of value. Does one find a faith community of benefit to one's life journey? If so, these faith communities will define one's faith for you. This is how the Protestant denominations have worked, even though Protestantism was resistance to defining authority. As the Protestant faith is a foundational principle to America's understanding of religion, America does not allow the State to sancton one faith above another. Some may not choose to value a faith communities' defining faith. And these will find themselves as "outliers" to faith communities. Some of the Founding Fathers were "outliers" to orthodox Christian faith and America was to be tolerant toward such faith/beliefs.

Those that use reason to justify faith are apologists. These use their reason to justify faith claims about "God's intervention" in the world, or "God", as the world. One takes God as the over-seer, while the other sees "god" as the world, itself. One focuses on a supernatural God, while the other focuses on a natural God; the God of the philosophers.

It is very dangerous to believe that one's faith is absolute, because faith is context specific (denomination or religion). Therefore,good government cannot be based on "faith claims", because then, government would have to sanction a certain specified faith, which our First Amendment forbids. We became a country that had no allegience to one size fits all "faith". America believes in the indivdiual's right of choice about that value. And America also defends those that don't have that value, just as well!

Our pastor ended his sermon by suggesting that when one was at work and chose to talk about the "Tea Party" movement to use biblical or religious language! I thought that this sleight of hand was a way for him to gain the Christian Right's attention to religious ideals and values of the "religious left", instead of economic, democratic, and political values of capitalism.

Our government and the West in general believes that individuals have a right to disagree and be a part of the political process. How does one see government and the individual? Is government to have positive liberties and rights, or is the individual to have these positive rights? Is government to be understood to only have negative liberties and rights, or is the individual to only have negative liberties and rights? Our Founders believed in limited government. That is negative liberties and rights. This is the basis of Constitutional balance of power. One cannot have a government based on government power, otherwise, those governing have all the power, while the people are pawns to government dictates.  This is a dangerous position because such thinking leaves room for radical liberal ideologues to gain power in our government without any question from the Right. We must maintain the balancing of views so that our government will not be run without accountability to "the other side". Otherwise, our governemnt will be defined by a "one size fits all" and such governing would be tyrannical to those that disagree!

Irregardless of what the pastor said today, the political realm is the real world and whether one believes in god or not, one must live in and under the type of government that exists in/over one's society.

Aayan Hirshi Ali and Her Free Thought

I listened to Aayan Hirshi Ali this morning as she accepted an award from the "Freedom From Religion Foundation". She wrote "Infidel", which I read several years ago. She has been a source of inspiration in her fortitude and resistance to religious zeal and her desire to seek rationality instead of religious belonging.

Her speech used "The Emperor With No Clothes" and she talked about how those that want to "belong" at all costs will suppress their questions and unify their opinions because they fear being an "outcast" or "outsider" to the "faith".

This is correct, as humans are prone to decieve themselves and others in their attempt to provide and protect their "community". It  becomes an all out "war" of sorts because one's very identity is caught by such thinking and being in the world. Aayan embraced the questions because she valued honestly above myth. Such questioning  is doubly threatened because it puts one's personal values in question, especially if financial and family investments have a stake in such interests.

Ms. Ali escaped Islam's grasp over her life by fleeing Somalia, becomeing educated in the Netherlands, and finding a "voice in America".

Is she duped by her "reason"? Is she sabatoging another's right to "believe"? What she suggests is that rationality is to be held as a guard against religious fundamentalism, and zeal. It protects from psychological abuse that hinders one from becoming and being in the world as a free moral agent.The individual is to be set free from such "communal understandings". Belonging should be about things that do not depend on irrationality, which leaders have power to enforce at the costs of another's rational conviction and/or commitment.

America is great because it allows for freedom of religion, but doesn't demand religion as a test for public service. Character, which is of uptmost importance in public office is not dependent on one's religious affliation. In fact, religious people, as well as the irreligious, justify what they do by "rational argument". There is no justification to defrauding or manipulating because of a 'higher law" or standard, whether that standard be a religious or secular standard.  America believes that all "belong", as citizens and it is the citizen's right to be treated as equal before the law. And it is called our Constitutional right.

Why I Think Believing Iis Dangerous in the World of Science and Scientists

Belief in the supernatural realm is dangerous, because it denies the real world and tries to blame "the devil" or accepts passivly such things as tyranny, abuse, and evil. Such thinking does not lead one to learn, grow or expand, becuase "God will take care of you". Whenever suffering or injustice happens, it is chalked up to "God's training ground, because God doesn't allow anything to happen unless it is in his Divine Purpose, Plan and Will. Tyranny, abuse and evil in the world is not challenged, it is accepted as "God's rule on earth", whereas, each person deserves the right to exist, be respected and given opportunity.

Today, science frames our reality and understanding differently than in the past. Science is showing us more and more how the world works and what probably happened from the beginning. Humans may not be the only life in the universe. We just don't know for sure...

Where the Church used to teach man as the center of the universe, science undermined that understanding where it became known that the Sun was the center of our solar system and we are only one solar system in the universe. This fact alone is humbling to man, as he is not the ultimate focus of all things.

Man becomes responsible in this "universe" because he no longer depends upon a God out there, but takes on responsibility for himself. People do disagree as to what is the responsibility of man toward himself, the environment and others will be. And these differences are not easy black and white solutions in a world that is filled with diverse ways of understanding and thinking.

So, believeing is dangerous because it limits, defines and dismisses the greater questions about life, and the world we live.

The Authoritarian Relgious

I just realized when I re-read my last enty, that a religion that works like the miltary is what some deem "Christian discipleship". It is nothing more than abuse of power over individual lives, in the name of God.

Christianity's close affliation with Islam should help us understand why some would see thier Christian faith in such anti-cultural and authoritarian ways.

Sacrifice is the epitome of this type of religious conviction, as it shows how much one trusts God or is willing to serve God above all other gods. The use of Abraham in Genesis is useful to illustrate "what God requires", the sacrifice of any "hope", as the promised one, is to be the sacrifice. It is called covenant theology.

The story ends with Abraham's "trust in God' being defined by the test of sacrifice and God's provision of a "lamb" in Isaac's stead.

Christians have used this to illustrate their message of provision of a "savior", in Christ.

But, what kind of God demands sacrifice and testing to prove that He is first and foremost the most important in one's life? Does a father or mother ever think that this would be appropriate to request of a child? or a spouse? or even a friend? Is God above our understanding of common decency and care of human desires and emotion?

Some would say that God is interested in purifying our desires and our interests, as he is to be worshipped above all gods and this is the way in which his purification comes.

I think Voltaire's "Candid" would be my response. God is in control of everything therefore any danger should not be seen as a danger. Any obstacle can be removed by faith, if one only believes. Healing can come to the sick if they only have enough faith, etc....God is in Control. God intervenes, but he doesn't always answer our prayers the way that we want him to. But, what if we have requested something that must be "his will" and yet, the prayer is unanswered?

I have heard Christians defend God's "lack of response" by saying that "his ways are not our ways", "he has higher purposes or plans", "he knows best", " God works it all out in the end", " God is just, we just don't undestand everything about his justice", ad nauseum....theologizing pain, suffering, death, suicide, and other human tragedies.

The other answer is that "God is disciplining you", so that you may partake of his holiness! Thank you, but no thank you. Why is it that he "picks on some" as he is supposed to have 'no favorites, as he is no respector of persons.

So, those that hold these views believe that the only thing that is required is absolute faith or trust, withholding one's reason, in fact, reason is the enemy in these cases, because reason will supplant faith.

In the real world, those who have gotten burned when their heart was right and they trusted with all their might and they died, or they were immensely disappointed, or etc...Do these continue to go down the same road and perform the same behavior of "trust", believing somehow that they were at fault, somehow? Or do they learn that this is not the way the world works and then set out to learn what is expected in the "real world"?

I think that those who believe in this type of supernaturalism are really half crazy. I was. And I am trying to come to some sort of sanity, where reality is not disconnected from any other source of knowledge, or life experience.

I really fear for these, as they ignore the "world" thinking that the world will 'take care of itself', because these are to be separate from the world and everything in it. These miss so much of life and the joy of living.

Theology and Philosophy?

Theology assumes God exists. The question for the theologian is how to defend God in today's world of scientific exploration. Many have given an "apologetic" for the faith, as this is what the Church Fathers did throughout Church history. This is the stance of the theologian; faith in using philosophy to formulate thier particular theological "form". But, is faith in faith viable, really? How do you use reason? Do you depend on experience? I think this is a dangerous stance.

While the theologian assumes God, the philosopher does not. He begins with reason as his resource, but those philosophers who believe in God have faith in reason and seek to explain God within that frame through the disciplines.

Other philosophers, whether agnostic or atheistic, do not believe that God actually exists, but that God is a "function" within society or for the individual. These believe in the development of persons and societies because God is a needed resource for those whose contexts have been "barren".

Agnostics don't really want to defend God, as they are humanists at heart and think that this is the proper focus of life. If God exists, the agnostic believes that God's interaction with the world remains a mystery as we cannot observe God's intervention directly, except through faith.

Atheists believe that God only functions as an illusion in one's mind that is a needed representation of the mind, so development can occur.

Which one are you? Do you begin with faith, assuming God's existance, or do you have faith in reason, as God's gift, and believe that one can ascertain God in whatever one encounters in faith?

Or do you hold God tentatively, because there is no way to "prove" God. God has to be a presuppostion.

Or are you an atheist that believes that "god" is good because he is useful for a purpose?

Justified to Dis-criminate

The religious seem to justify discrimination. As we all discriminate, because we must make judgments, what is wrong about discriminating amongst religious traditions? Because traditions all seek to understand God within their cultural reference points, we differ as to how we understand reality, God and humans. While humans seek to understand God, as the majority of humans are religious, we should not use God to discriminate.

Discrimination can be along doctrinal lines, where one must adhere to certain beliefs that are and have been traditionally held. These discriminations are the heresy trials, and witch hunts of our country's early Founding. These are understanding of what formulate the creeds. This is the "standards" of belief systems.

Discrimination can also be because one doesn't interpret a text in the right way. Infants must be baptized,; communion must be taken; children must be circumcised; one must cross their hands wile praying; these all are emphasis of undestanding tradition's texts and a reverance for God. What the sacraments mean vary according to the speicific religion and sect.

Some adhere to a wholesale theological framework, in which all of life is understood. These traditions are static and specified in such detail that if one deters from what is orthodox, one has erred and is labelled an infidel.

Discrimination is justified, becasue it affirms our own way of being and undestanding the world. We love to use God for our own purposes. God gives us a sense of power and control; a sense of purpose and a value. Our egos need God's sanction, so we form our "ingroups and our outgroups' based on these understandings and factors.

I truly understand the need to belong. It is one of the most basic of human needs. Humans need support, encouragment and companionship. Of course, some need these blessings more than others.

Justifying our belief systems and our standards of behavior is a rational activity. There is nothing wrong about this either, as all human do this consciously or unconscously. But, when we use our rational resources to maintain an 'in group" at the costs of another, we have stepped past the line for common decency and civil discourse. In our society, discrimination is about belonging to the civil discourse, and there is no justification for discrimination.

Belonging, Belief, and Behavior "Revisited"

On Richard Beck's 'Experimental Theology" he wrote about "Third Places". I think these "third places" are what humans need in their experience of life. It is one of the basic needs of being human. It is the need to "belong". Humans are social beings.

Behavior that is inclusive is also about belonging to the "human race". This is about being and acting humanely.

Beliefs, though, can inhibit humans from crossing the divide of difference and acting in a humane way. Many times these inhumane ways of behaving is because of a person's understanding of "god". And other times, prejuidice is due to conditioning within a certain social context.

In America, we live with difference, as we live in a diverse culture, although Beck seems to think that we don't. I guess it might depend on if we have ever lived in a city, even in surburbia. Larger populations in America are almost always diverse.

Human love to categorize, generalize, and universalize. This is one way that the social sciences understand the 'human". But, while social scientists generalize, humans are also unique individuals, with personal experiences, personal values, and personal gifts that go beyond their identification to a certain specification.

Some behaviorists think that change to an individual happens because of exposure. But, this is not always the case. Research has shown that not only do some people "read" their bias and prejuidice into a situation or encounter with another different from themselves, but there is also a type of 'prejuidicial personality type.

So, while instigating behavior is an important factor in evaluating or determining research for social scientists, it is a variable that is not easily "controlled" or evaluated as to its universiality.

In postmodernity's need to find "reason", human experience is the only "universal" human category. And the category itself is very diverse in its true understanding.

Is There Such a Thing as Historical Christianity?

I have alluded to the fact that some of the things I have been learning have led me to question whether there is a real beginning to Christianity. This is what many in the scholarly world seek to prove.

In fact, it seems that even the roots of Christianity, the Jewish tradition, is also of various opinions and theories. This leaves little room for rational faith. And this is the point of the radical. Radicalism is the 'leap" where reason leaves off. But, what if one is not willing to trust the dark as "God's hand"? Does that person "die in their sins"?

I find it hard to believe or think that any God worth serving is "bound to anyone's service" , "duty", or understanding. Service must come from the person's desire to do "good" and their voluntary giving of themselves in their personal value system and not from any outside source or authorial demand. This is why I wonder and question about people of radical faith.

As faith has been based on many things, what is truly "real faith"? Faith in a rationale for life is no less faith. Why does anyone suppose that faith has to look "the same" or believe the same things about life in this world, as faith is living out one's life based upon one's understanding of life. Everyone has faith, just not in the type of 'god" you might suppose, by faith.

The Absurdity of Belief continued

Tonight, while eating with some students, the discussion led to the octupulets that were just born. We started talking about whether this was ethical and on what grounds do we defend or understand our position. It was quite interesting....

In the proces of discussing this issue, which got into whether God interevened directly into the life of this mom's choice to have the children, the in vitro fertilization, responsibility factors, and whether one can come to a universal understanding of birth control and on what basis...we "happened" upon how miracles can be believed as written in the text using science. I think I will call it biblical scientism, as it hisoricizes the text as literally true, even scientificall....the words are interpreted into scientific understandings...so instead of understanding the ancient text as "outdated" through ancient Greek understandings, they seek to hold to "inerrancy, and infallibilty" of the text, while re-interpreting what was "inspired". No myth here...no, it is absolute reality that is to be applied to life today.

I didn't even respond, unless my facial expression gave me away. It is always important to affirm what students believe and ask the right questions to get them to think beyond where they are...I didn't even have questions to ask, as I was dumb-founded.

Oh, well, life will go on regardless of what this student believes about the text. I have to live my life and he his...He is after all a married man.(His wife was also in on the conversation!)....

Agnostics Are More Believable

Agnostics are more believable than "bible believing Christians", because while they use their reason well (outside the authority of a text and/or tradition), they also understand the limitation to reason. I find this refreshingly appropriate, because it brings humility to the table in regards to things we cannot know, like God, while agnostics do not assume they know he doesn't exist, either!

I am very tired of people trying to theologize evil by laying it at the "foot of the Cross" or some other such nonsense!!! It is the height of arrogance, at least to me, to assert claims of value in suffering. It is Job's comforter's all over again!

Those who want to theologize about suffering are those who place their absolute trust and claims about "God's Sovereignty" and control in history, etc....I do not believe this, as it is so presumptive in regards to other traditions of faith, and to man's reason. People want to minimize what they do, so they scapegoat a God-figure, by creating some "unjust theology" about a mythological figure, or, a shadowy historical one.

I do not believe that we can assume a personal God because it our "hearing" could be nothing other than self-reflection, or projection, which can result in many understandings about oneself, and about life in general. No, I don't believe that God has revealed anything apart from the natural arena of man. Man creates, man directs, man chooses, and makes his own destiny. The suffering theology is one for those who have no choice, or no value to these kinds of Christians. And certainly, while these kinds of Christians claim God's love, they deny him by their theologizing about the suffering of others.

Maybe what Christians should do is "make Christian history real" by bringing in the Kingdom, and taking control of others in the Name of God, because after all, this is what life is to be about...Making disciples, either by their free choice or by force. Church history has revealed that this is not appropriate and has brought about an "us/them" mentality that doesn't do anything to further peace,.

I am weary of Christian people who claim for others, presumptuously, and pre-emptively. This is what suffering is about, because it presumes upon man's developmental nature, which limits these individuals under the "rule" of these unjust Christians!

A Childish Faith Births a Faithful Skeptic

I used to believe in fairy tales that there was a prince that would come and take me away to a fairy land to live happily ever after. But, life is more tragic than a child's imaginings. We are not protected by God and there are no supernatural interventions, at least in my life. That does not mean that I don't believe that blessings are from God, as all things are blessings. But, to me, to assume in a supernatural intervention and presume upon that in plans is presumptuous. David prayed that God would keep him from presumptuous sins. Presumption is taking things into one's own hands. Faith is much more like my husband's life of quiet trust, a lack of worry, fear and anxiety. He believes that things will work out. Unfortunately, for me my grandmother used to tell me that all the time (usually during periods of tragedy). But, life did not work out as my heart desired. So, I don't believe that things work out. I used to.

When I came to faith, I understood it to be the best news on earth, because I didn't have to perform, because God loved me like I was. That meant that I was loveable, and since I'd neve felt loveable all my life, this was exciting for me. In fact, I thought that my identification with Christ's death was good news. Why? Because I hated myself so much that this was an easy emotional suicide of 'self". This way a better person could live, Christ. I practiced my faith and continued to believe irregardless of any trial that this was the way of learning how to be holy and like Christ. I was crucifying my flesh, so that Christ could live in me. But, what I came to experienc in the end was an annihlation of my very identity and self. This is not good news, as it leaves no person and no sense of personhood or boundaries, which are a healthy necessity for personal identity and a healthy sense of self. So, lately, whenever I hear of "dying to self", "being crucified with Christ", etc. It has connotations for me of an emotional pain that I cannot describe. This is not healthy Christian faith. And those who believe that I am only protecting myself are unfortunately, misguided, as whenever someone has no sense of "self' there is a tendency for others to trample boundaries that must be maintained. This is a healthy self-respect and regard. It is not selfhishness, as I had always thought and had practiced denying myself in this regard. Sometimes, those like me with little of no identity attach to a religious identity to bulwark a lack of development. Recently, I have come to recognize that boundary maintenance is a discipline that I must practice, just as much as those who are presumptuous must practice self-control.

Now, my faith is tattered, worn, faltering at times, wondering for a reason, and thinking about a faith that has died and birthed a critical doubt, sometimes skepticism,. The death of my previous faith breeds anger at those who propose a simplistic faith and trust, and a grief and self-recrimination over being so naive and gullible. This is a place of learning about myself, my values, my friends, my family, and my own sense of self identity. It is a place of growth and a place of faith, nonetheless.

Is Behavior Based on Reason, or Tradition? And Is Belief Based on Reason or Tradition?

I wrote a post a few days ago about belonging was the ideal for faith, as it affirm all people as made in God's image and affims a humanitarian view of religion. But, as my thinking has "matured" these past few days, I understand they way I categorized belief and behavior as only one way of understanding; where belief was based on tradition and behavior was based on reason.

This is true if one wants to believe that all belief systems are limited ways to understand "god" and therefore, all relgions are man's attempt to interpret "god". The history of traditions area would affirm this way of thinking.

But, can't belief also be based on reason? Reason is useful in any attempt within a particular tradition to understand "faith". This way of thinking would be affirmed by the philosophy of traditions approach.

Behavior can be viewed as cultural (tradition) or theological (reason). If one undestands the culture's tradition and the way that culture defines worship, then behavior reinforces the tradition's understanding of "truth". This way of thinking is understood by the psychology of religion approach...

So, whether one understands behavior or belief in a cultural or reasoned way, both are "ways of life", a "way of understanding" and a "cultural framework".

Behavio (reason), Belief(tradition) or Belonging (experience)

Many have tried to define faith on belief systems, which has done nothing for bringing unity. Others have tried to define unity on practice, or behavior, but this attempt also does not affirm diversity. So, how are we to define and affirm a unity in diversity? Faith.

Faith is in belonging to the human race, which brings unity, while belonging to certain cultures, nationalities, cultures, or traditions, brings about the diverse ways in understanding one's faith. Faith can be in anything, but all of us have faith. Belonging is a matter of finding where we belong, where we agree about how we define our faith. Faith in our common humanity, which needs identification factors in norms of behavior (as defined by religion, culture, or community), will bring about the environment where we can engage in understanding our diverse understandings of faith.

Faith in reason, faith in tradition, or faith in experience will guide the discussion over what our faith means and how that meaning affects our behavior. Behavior cannot be limited to a certain definition, other than a respect and honoring of another's difference. Nor can faith be defined by a spcified understanding, as faith is about our understanding of life itself, which ultimately means we affirm ourselves and another's belonging to the human race.

The Question of Christian Faith

Most Christians have a story, whether they came to faith through an personal experience, or were brought up in Church. These Christian stories are what bring meaning and/or understanding of what is of value and why. Different denominations, as well as the Catholic or Orthodox faith would understand these meanings differently and thereby would impact one's life differently.'

I do not believe that a person's faith commitment is defined in childhood, as understanding one's faith is a lifelong process. And life's commitments, contingencies and questions all impact how one evaluates their faith and how they continue or discontinue that faith.

In coming to faith, I had understood an unconditionality to love that I had never known and desparately needed to believe. But, as understanding changes due to many variables, I have chosen to distance myself from such a simplistic understanding, as God is not "active" in the way I had understood in my earlier experience and understanding. God is the great unknown mystery of life. He is not confined within any text, or within nature itself, but is seen in many ways through the human capacity for love, inspiration, creativity, hope and rationality. These are the ways in which I long to worship, not in a particular form, but a particular thrust.

I am glad that my Christian faith has been impacted by American ideals of justice before law, liberty to pursue goals or values that mean the most to me.

I am fortunate to be in a free nation, which allows freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Americans need to understand their faith as one that represents a God that allows individual difference and values individual uniqueness.

I'm hoping that my faith journey will not be defined by what I do not believe, as that has been of major importance in throwing off what is unvaluable to me, but what I choose to be committed to and why those commitments are of importance. Faith, then, becomes a flexible, but defining choice.