Beautiful faith

- faith that looks like Jesus Christ

(The following text is an edition of my final paper in the Interpretation and Argument class at Carnegie Mellon. The topic for the class was religion and power, and this is my simple attempt to contribute to the discussion. Even though it is written for a Christian audience, I hope it can bring some light to the secular discussion as well. Keep in mind that this text is a result of a young man's reasoning, who himself is slightly hesitant towards some of the conclusions he reaches. So please comment in a friendly tone.)


I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Abstract
This blog post argues that Christian faith should be understood as trusting that Jesus is Lord, as opposed to a commitment to believe everything in the Bible. To the extent that believers understand their faith otherwise, their faith quickly becomes something ugly that righteously falls under the critique of modern atheists like Richard Dawkins. The paper examines the difference between the two definitions of faith through examples from modern scholars, personal experience and excerpts from the Bible itself. It concludes that faith understood as trusting that Jesus is Lord is how Christians should understand their faith. It also argues that such faith is not ugly, but as beautiful as Jesus himself.

Introduction
Christians should all be able to answer this important question; what does it mean to be Christian? Now, if you ask this question to an unsorted array of Christians, you quickly discover that there is little unity among the answers. But of the many answers you can get, let me draw your attention to two of the answers in particular. One is that being a Christian is to submit to Jesus in humble service to others; the other answer is that being a Christian at its core is about believing in such and such doctrines. These different definitions of being a Christian may of course be phrased in different ways, and to most believers, they both make up a component of their faith; nevertheless, I will argue that there is one answer that is better than the other answers. That would mostly fall into the first category: Being a Christian is to trust that Jesus is Lord.

I think this answer is crucial in order to have a beautiful faith. And already, I find much beauty in the church. Impressive individuals like Mother Teresa for instance, or the homeless ministry ran by Hot Metal Bridge Faith Community here in Pittsburgh; people devoted to follow Jesus’ example of healing the sick and befriending the poor and rejected. Not to mention Jesus himself, who is the rock on which all this is built. (Matt 7)

But unfortunately, Christians are not always that beautiful. For instance, the church has been supporting numerous which-hunts and wars throughout history, and still there are congregations that loudly support such measures, for instance the war on terror; others are caught up in a judgemental state of mind that makes them shout 'sin' as loudly as possible in the face of sinners, and homosexuals in particular. Neither is beautiful. In fact, it was straight out ugly when televangelist Jerry Falwell proclaimed his support for the Iraq war: “You've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.”

Of course, the church is made up of man, and man usually is pure in neither spirit nor action. Thus, I will never expect it to be perfect; but I argue the church can still be beautiful, and that a mistaken perception of faith is an important factor why it sometimes is not. The mistake fundamentalist Christians do (apart from discarding Jesus’ teachings about humility in Matt 7) is to make their faith focused on doctrines.

Instead, what beautiful Christians should be focusing on, is hope and confidence in God himself. We should focus on faith as submission to Jesus and trust in God to provide as we follow him. Believe that God’s kingdom is beautiful, and live in hope that it is coming. If faith is to make Jesus king, then faith is as beautiful as Jesus himself.

Faith is doctrine
One of the most compelling works on the significance of assumptions about faith is in Karen Armstrong’s The Case for God. She describes two different ways to understand faith, namely mythos and logos. The two words did in the old Greek tradition use to represent two different forms of knowledge, she explains, one that concerned itself with practical issues and the improvement and development of those (logos), and one that was more in the psychological sphere of competence (mythos). The distinctive merit of mythos was that “people had to enter the warren of their own minds and fight their personal demons,” and it was not meant to be understood literally. However, she continues, since the early modern period in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, mythos has been reduced to something that is not true at all. She concludes that this disparage of mythos has “resulted in two distinctively modern phenomena: fundamentalism and atheism.”

It seems, then, like religion today has become caught up in a logos understanding of their faith, even though there is little defence for such a position in the academic sphere. But within the religious sphere of Christianity, many argue that the word of the Bible is supposed to be interpreted literally. The most prominent example of this is creationism, which is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis:

We believe in creation, first of all, not because of scientific evidence, but because of our faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word the Bible. The Lord Jesus is revealed in the Bible to be the Creator of all things (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:1-3), and He is for Christians the Lord of all and the Head over all things, including science (Acts 10:36, Ephesians 1:22). Our Head has said something about science in John 5:45-47, namely this: If we believe in Jesus Christ, then we must believe Moses' writings. What did Moses write about first of all? He wrote about the creation of all things by God. So we judge science by the Bible and not the other way around. "We walk by faith, not by sight." (I Corinthians 5:7)
Creation-Science Research Center

Such logos interpretation of the Bible in many Christian communities is also what critics like Richard Dawkins assume, discarding any mythos understanding of religion as a “lonely creek.” In fact, this assumption is at the very core of Dawkins argument: “Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.” To him, faith is this mental exercise in believing something factual one really has no reason to believe, and it is represented by stubbornness and arrogance, deafness to reason. Dawkins does not recognize anything beautiful about that, and subsequently discards faith as evil altogether.

Faith is life
In response, Christians thinkers like Harvey Cox are developing theologies that hardly have any doctrines at all. Cox describes faith as a hope and trust in God to just work, as opposed to belief, which he describes as certainty of details and factualities. Like the priest Unamuno suggested, “you don’t have to believe in God to pray.” Cox strongly emphasise faith (mythos) over belief (logos), even to the point where he subtly questions the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus as factual events. And even if that might be reading too much into Cox’ words, at the very least the factual components of those events appears less important to him, as they seemingly deal with belief rather than faith.

We find a similar interpretation by Gene Robinson, a practicing gay bishop of the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire. He does not attribute authority to the Bible as much as he attributes authority to God and Jesus himself. “The Bible is the best and most trustworthy witness to [Jesus' life, death and resurrection], but it neither replaces Jesus as the Word [of God] nor takes precedence over Christ's continuing action in the world through the Holy Spirit.” Of course, Robinson is forced to such an interpretation in order to practice homosexuality with a pure conscience. But also the morally far more conservative bishop N. T. Wright writes along the same lines:

The regular views of scripture and its authority which we find not only outside but also inside evangelicalism fail to do justice to what the Bible actually is – a book, an ancient book, an ancient narrative book. They function by tuning that book into something else, and by implying thereby that God has, after all, given us the wrong sort of book. This is a low doctrine of inspiration, whatever heights are claimed for it and whatever words beginning with ‘in-’ are used to label it.
Wright, Nicholas Thomas

Wright continues to explain how the Bible has the authority of a story – an unfinished play where we are currently in the process of playing out the last act. The authority lies in that we should stay true to the preceding acts of the story. “Appeal could always be made,” he explains, “to the inconsistency of what was being offered with a major theme or characterization in the earlier material.” Clearly, Wright is here not preaching anything close to an ‘unquestionable’ faith. Rather, Wright and Robinson, as well as Cox, Armstrong and many others, are all arguing that faith primarily is about living. And living is all about asking questions, like, ‘what do we do now?’

There are in other words influential scholars that prove Dawkins terribly wrong in his assumption that unquestionable doctrine is the only sizeable form of faith we find in Christianity today.

The role of doctrine
Of course, most Christians have some form of basic doctrine that is important to them, including myself. It is for instance difficult to make Jesus Lord if you think Jesus was just an ordinary man with a good heart. It is easy to make an ordinary man with a good heart an inspiration or a hero, even though you may think he is insane. But it is quite different to make him Lord. So to have such faith, it is very helpful to intellectually believe that Jesus actually is God, in a very objective sense. And if not with an absolute certainty, at least consider it plausible and hope that it is the case.

This doctrine, if you will, is of course important to the believer. But neither this is a question of creed as much as it is a question of living. In its most basic form, this is a part of trusting that Jesus is Lord. This trust, or acknowledgment if you like, does not always come with an absolute historical certainty, but it should always come with confidence in the forgiveness of sins and a subsequent change in behaviour for the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

In fact, the creed of Jesus’ Lordship itself is nothing more than empty words if not a result of trusting that Jesus is Lord. You can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ as much as you want, but if you don’t trust it – that is, with your life – it is all useless. To insist on the creed of Jesus’ Lordship while not living it is actually straight out hypocrisy. It is like proclaiming that everyone should be warm and well fed without giving as much as a penny to those cold and hungry.

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder.
James 2:14-19 (TNIV)

The core of faith ought not to be creeds and doctrines but a confidence that Jesus is Lord. The core of faith is not ‘works’ and being nice to other people either; but the core of faith should be to trust that Jesus is Lord. I will examine more closely what this trust looks like.

Faith is trusting that Jesus is Lord
What is trust? Let me explain what I mean by using an example from the infantry. A soldier must trust his fellow soldiers to cover him as he advances to the next pit. He trusts that his brothers in arms are shooting at the enemy – and not at him. He also trusts that they in fact do shoot at the enemy, so he is ‘covered’ when he moves. He is hence giving his life at the mercy and skill of his team. This is trust.

Similarly, to trust in Jesus is to have a sense that Jesus forgives your sins and watches over you. To use the analogy of a soldier, trusting Jesus is to move forward to the next pit with confidence. It is to live with the assurance that he is covering you so that the forces of Hell can’t get you. To further capture the sense of Jesus’ Lordship, you can expand the analogy to make Jesus your squad leader. The squad leader is active in giving cover, while he also gives instructions on where to move forward.

Of course, Jesus’ way of warfare is quite different from that of a worldly war. As Jesus tells his followers to move forward, he only has one command: to love. That is how the Kingdom of God fights, that is how the Kingdom of God is different from this world (John 18:36). Listen to Jesus’ command:

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.
John 15:9-13 (TNIV)

To trust that Jesus is Lord, then, is to have confidence in and live as though Jesus was your squad leader. It is always looking to Jesus when wondering where to move forward next. It is to trust that he protects you. It is to be a follower of Christ, manifesting Christ’s character in the world, laying our lives down in humble service. Like Claiborne and Haw sees it in their Jesus for President, a “Christian came to refer to those disciples who saw themselves as ‘little Christs,’ people who were literally the body of Christ, the hands and feet of Jesus alive in the world.” In short, to make Jesus Lord is to follow his example, and to trust he is Lord is to trust that he is covering us. This is the core of faith.

Faith is beautiful
Now that we have established what is our core of faith, the other aspects of faith, though still valid, becomes more secondary. So even though faith understood as believing everything in the Bible is still present, it is not the core. So also interpreting every little thing in the Bible is neither our primary concern. For instance, there is a discussion on in which situations the Bible condemns abortion, opinions ranging from 'always' to 'never.' And sure, there might be a correct answer to that. But finding that answer is no longer our primary concern, much less insisting on the truth to whatever answer we end up with. Rather, our primary concern is trusting that Jesus is Lord. And Jesus is fully beautiful.

If the primary concern of faith is to believe everything in the Bible, then surely a believer will emphasize the inconsistencies he finds between scripture and the world. If his primary concern is to believe in the Bible, it quickly becomes important for him how Genesis should be interpreted. If his conclusion is creationism, then of course he will emphasise this in his life (or he might reach the same conclusion, but subsequently abandon faith completely because it does not make sense to him). And when a Bible-emphasizing believer reads that homosexuality is a sin, of course he emphasises this in his life, even if he has no such tendencies himself. But what is beautiful about that? Nothing is beautiful about being certain of other people’s sin. Nothing.

A relevant example would be the Manhattan Declaration, published On November 20, 2009. It has of today over 430 000 signatures. These signers are all stating that their faith compels them to fight politically for the sanctity of life, the institution of marriage and religious liberty. It seems that the major concern of the declaration is to impose the moral truths they derive from scripture onto society as a whole. But what is beautiful about that?

In the Manhattan Declaration, the signers even explicitly state that they “set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture (...).” Then is not their faith primarily about believing in the Bible? That is not a beautiful faith! That is a faith concerned with the kingdoms of the world; it has little to do with the kingdom in which Jesus is Lord.

I say, we should rather make our primary concern to trust that Jesus is Lord. Then we become as beautiful as Jesus himself. If our faith is primarily concerned with living in the Kingdom of God, then our faith is beautiful. Faith is beautiful if it looks like Jesus Christ, refusing to throw the first stone and turning the other cheek. Faith is beautiful if it looks like Jesus Christ, washing the feet of his disciples. Faith is beautiful if it looks like Jesus Christ, dying for the very people who crucify him... Faith is beautiful indeed if it looks like Jesus Christ. And that is exactly what faith should look like.

Conclusion
Faith can have many different aspects to it, and it is hard to separate one part of faith entirely from another, even though scholars like Cox and Armstrong suggests this is both recommendable and possible. At least I can agree it makes a big difference what we make the core of our faith – the difference between trust in Jesus and belief in the Bible is overwhelming, even as it can be reasonably argued that you cannot have one without the other.

When a trust that Jesus is Lord is the very centre of faith, faith makes people beautiful and gives peace at heart, and it opens the text of the Bible for honest discussion. If, on the other hand, the text in the Bible itself is the most important thing in faith, then being aware of certain “biblical truths” suddenly becomes equally important to making Jesus Lord. That makes it is easy to push Jesus slightly aside in favour of defending the other truths of the Bible. Faith is not all beautiful anymore, and the road to the ugly faith in Dawkins’ analysis is short.

But faith is supposed to be pure and beautiful. Faith is supposed to look like Jesus Christ himself, the one in which we trust as Lord. That is the kind of faith I want to seek for my life, and which I hope everyone will seek with me. If we would all grow in such faith, I cannot believe other than that the church will grow to become the beautiful bride Jesus desires. The church will not be perfect until the day when the Kingdom of God has fully come; but it will still be beautiful.



Your kingdom come, your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Matthew 6:10 (TNIV)



Read more:
Creation-Science Research Center: The Basics Explained
Richard Dawkins: Man vs. God (Wall Street Journal)
Jerry Falwell: Wikiquotes
Mahatma Gandhi: Wikiquotes
The Manhattan Declaration: A call of Christian conscience
N. T. Wright: How can the Bible be authoritative?

Other literature:
Karen Armstrong: The Case for God
Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw: Jesus for President
Harvey Cox: The Future of Faith
Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion
Gene Robinson: In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God
The Bible: Today's New International Version

Unity and disagreement

When I was in the army, there was only one Christian fellowship in the garrison where I was stationed. The official Norwegian Lutheran church ran a chapel, and a Lutheran priest was employed by the military to hold service every week, which was all Lutheran psalms and liturgy. However, many of the young soldiers that attended the church, like myself, were not Lutheran at all. We were Baptists, Roman Catholics, followers of different protestant traditions, and non-denominational Christians. Yet, we all shared the same bread and wine, we all sung the same songs, and we all ate the same waffles. It was beautiful.

Many of the best discussions I’ve had were in the discussion group in that chapel. The discussion group was open for everybody, and many that showed up weren’t Christians at all, but adhered to different spiritualities, to quasi-philosophical agnosticism, or even atheism. Much to learn and much waffles to consume. I really got to know a lot of good hearts in those discussions. Honest hearts. We were not united in beliefs, far from so; but in mutual respect we built something as rare as a unity in heart. It was not a perfect heart; but I believe we were headed in the right direction. Those of us who simultaneously were intentional in seeking Jesus’ heart, were amazed how these discussions brought such light to our quest. Or at least I was.

I fell in love with unity.

So I was distressed when the Catholic Church didn’t want to share in communion with me. And as I left the army and moved to Pittsburgh, I was heartbroken to find that the Lutheran church, which I had come to love so much, didn’t want to share communion with me unless I was Lutheran, or at least something close. I probably could have passed the “test,” but then what I loved about the church was lost. On top of this, in a non-denominational church of the faith-movement I visited, they didn’t allow undergraduates to share in communion. Nowhere, it seemed, did they acknowledge me. I was rejected.

Mark 14:17-25 (NIV)
When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me — one who is eating with me." They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, "Surely not I?"

"It is one of the Twelve," he replied, "one who dips bread into the bowl with me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

Look at it: Even Judas Iscariot was allowed in communion. Man, if Judas Iscariot was allowed communion, then who should not be? And imagine the atmosphere at the table. Everybody is suspicious towards everybody. So much tension... Is it Peter that is going to betray Jesus? After all, Jesus called him Satan just a few chapters ago. Is it Simon the revolutionary zealot? Or Matthew the tax collector? It surely is not I, is it? Suspicion. Mistrust. But Jesus made his disciples share the communion nevertheless. Because Jesus himself is what communion is about. It is not about the agreements between those who partake in it. Rather, communion is about looking past the disagreement in style, looking past disagreement in politics, and looking past disagreement in doctrine. Even looking past our suspicion that the other partakers are betraying Christ and his ideals. It is about looking past the dust and focusing everything on Christ himself. That is communion. That it is beautiful.

In the last weeks, I have realized this is difficult. You know those fundamentalist Christians that just make you so ashamed of your faith? Like when televangelist Jerry Falwell in October 2004 boldly proclaimed his support of the Iraq war: “You've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops and I am for the President — chase them all over the world, if it takes ten years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” How can I invite such a man to communion with me? Can I partake in communion with him? Really? Fact is I can’t stand the man, by knowing nothing more than that very quote. I just can’t. He repulses me, and I am highly suspicious he is betraying Jesus big-time. I do not want to be associated with that man. At all.

But pause for a moment. Is it not sad how I have made myself such a demonized image of Falwell? I most certainly am doing the man injustice. What do I really know about his heart? Well, nothing. I am still suspicious, sure, and I do not expect to agree with him in much. I am allowed to disagree; I am allowed to be suspicious. But Jesus made his disciples share the communion nevertheless. (though sharing with Falwell truly is a tough reputational sacrifice)

What do you say: Jehovah’s Witness claims that Jesus is just one of several expressions of God. Should we invite them to communion? Really? Hard core Calvinists claims that God does not love everybody. Should we invite them to communion? Really? Are they not worshipping a different God altogether?

Should we draw a line?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gives the book of Mormon equal weight as the Bible. The Adventist church is obsessed with the Sabbath as opposed to Sunday. The Catholic churches pray to saints. Churches of the faith-movement emphasise emotional experiences. Some churches show signs with “God hates fags.” Some churches do that. Some churches do this. Churches disagree on everything, even on Jesus himself. And the churches are allowed to disagree. But Jesus made his disciples share the communion nevertheless.

Say we actually draw a line. That man is allowed communion, this man is not. That man is one of us true Christians, this man is not. By doing so, are we not making ourselves judges? Jesus himself, the only one righteous to judge, did not.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for a good discussion. I am all for confronting views such as “we should blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” It was trough discussion (which surely was heated at times) that we gained this rare unity in the army chapel. It was through honest struggles with challenging questions we shed light on our path to a kingdom heart. But even as we usually ended up disagreeing at some point, we shared the waffles nevertheless.

How much more, then, should the church be able to share communion, we who all are intentionally seeking the heart of Christ...

Tetris

Move left - left arrow
Move right - right arrow
Move down - down arrow
Rotate - up arrow

Pause - p
Restart - r

Warm thanks to David Kosbie for teaching me this, and for providing JComponents and stuff that are too advanced for me right now.

(If you don't get it to work, try double-clicking inside the applet. If it still doesn't work, switch browser. If it still doesn't work, download the game to your computer (link below). If it still doesn't work, download java and try all this again. If it still doesn't work, buy a Mac)

More:
kosbie.net: Tetris
Play offline: Download Tetris

Beauty and justice

So what is all this talk about beauty? Isn’t it equally important to be just, and doesn’t justice look rough sometimes? Ok, justice may look rough sometimes. And justice may be good and necessary. It makes sense for a good God to exercise justice. But even God, which he himself is fully just, have problems making justice beautiful. You see, justice is hard and painful, and only has losers. (I think this is because justice only is required because of sin and ugliness in the first place.) Hence, justice is good and necessary, but not beautiful.

But justice is straight out ugly if the judge is guilty. We call it hypocrisy, and society righteously despises it.

What has faith got to do with it?

I’ve now submitted my synthesis paper in my class on religion and power. My previous paper in this class was a summary of one of Dawkins’ chapters from The God Delusion, and you can read that in its entirety here on this blog. Sadly, you say, I will not publish my synthesis paper here. Let me explain why.

I am simply not at peace with distributing the synthesis paper as it is right now. It is not so much the style issues I am worried about, nor do I worry about my academic analysis of the positions I am synthesising; it is not the quality of the paper I am concerned with. But frankly, I am not sure if I am being totally honest; I am not sure if I am fair, because I searched for what I wanted to find, I dug, and I found it. I need to feel more solid ground beneath my feet before you can all read it.

Nevertheless, I’ll give you the short version of my thoughts, without all the quotes and different authors and positions and that jazz. It is like the paper without the academic evidence. And only dealing with the Christian case. And more personal. In short, a more sincere heartsong. So, what has faith got to do with it?

But wait! What has faith got to do with what? Well, with religion and power of course. More precisely, what is faith, and how does your answer to that question affect your view on the relationship between the church and political institutions? For instance, a Christian may think it is a good thing for the church to invest much time and money in politics and lobbyism. Another Christian may think that is the worst thing the church could do. What is the difference between the faith of the first one and the second one?

In my personal Christian terminology, the body of all believers is referred to as “the body of Christ,” so in my mind, the church and the body of Christ is equivalent. Therefore, I’ll start off by substituting the word “church” in the hypothetical sentences above:

For instance, a Christian may think it is a good thing for the body of Christ to invest much time and money in politics and lobbyism. Another Christian may think that is the worst thing the body of Christ could do. What is the difference between the faith of the first one and the second one?

I mean, are these two Christians really part of the same body? They may have a somewhat similar vision of the future world, but they are headed in two profoundly different directions to get there. It seems to me as though there are two bodies of Christ, then. (So I’d love to ask, which of these bodies looks the most like Jesus? But I won’t really emphasise that question, it’s slightly off the point.)

This black and white analysis is of course not accurate at all. And neither is my next assumption, namely that faith is either factual doctrines, or hope and confidence. Of course, to most believers, faith is both hope, confidence and doctrines. But for the sake of the argument, bear with me.

Faith is many times depicted as knowing something for certain without really knowing it. For instance, young earth creationists argue that we should teach creationism in schools because that is what Genisis seems to suggest (at least by the literal interpretation these guys pledge to). They are pretty certain this literal interpretation is about what happened back then, so they rule out guided evolution and Big Bang as scientific non-sense. You see, to them, faith is to take the Bible seriously – and by seriously, they mean literally. Faith has become this exercise to believe in something they really have no reason to believe, the Bible aside. The same can be said for moral truths; “If you take the Bible seriously, you understand that homosexuality is sin,” and “If you take the Bible seriously, you understand that abortion is murder” etc. In this version of faith, to take the bible seriously has become to believe in certain historical and moral doctrines.

My guess is that most young Christians today that vote against homosexual marriages do so because it is part of their moral doctrine, not because they are homophobic.

The other version of faith is described as hope and confidence. In this version of faith, doctrines are less important, and having faith is really more about living in the hope and confidence that God will provide. This is the kind of faith we find when people are “taking a step in faith” and do something even when they cannot predict the outcome; sometimes they even have little to fall back on. Such faith can make a believer change his career plans, humble himself to ask for forgiveness in difficult situations, pray for random people on the street or open his house to strangers; this faith is confident that God forgives the past, and is living in hope for a world were God reigns and the lion sleeps with the lamb.

To me, it seems like the two faces of faith have little in common. Can they really be the same thing? Some even argue they are completely distinct. I can only examine myself, and find that I probably have a little of both. But, and this is the main point of the entire blog post, I strive to emphasise hope and confidence, because that is where the beauty in faith is found. What is beautiful about being certain the world was created 6000 years ago? Nothing! What is beautiful about being certain homosexuality is sin? Nothing, nothing, nothing is beautiful about being certain of other people’s sin! Nothing!

Being aware of your own sins, on the other hand, is quite useful. You need to acknowledge your sin if you want to be cleansed and beautified. That is what repentance is all about! But the process of beautification is first and foremost a fight with your own demons. As Jesus so wisely put it, “first take the plank out of your own eye.” This is why I believe there are so many moral guidelines in the Bible; not because being certain of the truth to them is a point in itself, but because we in the process of beautification sometimes need to be remained of what we are up against. And so can we struggle with were we find ourselves.

This focus on hope and confidence - life - of faith, also has another particular merit to it worth of mention: It allows for a much more honest discussion of the Bible, without shaking the foundation of faith. For instance, if someone has difficulties reconciling the creation story of the Bible with their scientific worldview, this can now be discussed without putting their entire faith at stake. If someone struggles with the passages condemning homosexuality, now at least it doesn’t shake their foundation of faith.

Finally, I argue this approach makes one less inclined to fight politically, for two reasons: The first being precisely that moral and historical truths are more ambiguous and open to discussion. To clarify: You may of course still argue this and that politically, but you are more hesitant to attribute these opinions to Jesus and his body of believers. The second reason is this: if faith is to give up life to be fully beautiful in hope and confidence that God provides, then you have all these planks to fight before you would even think of the sawdusts of those other people. You still have a moral and factual platform, sure; but exactly what that looks like is not a question you care too much to answer. “Rather,” you say, “ask what is the most beautiful thing to do right now.”


Read more:
Warrior of Agape: Why Dawkins is so hostile

Skydive

"Do one thing every day that scares you"
- Mary Schmich
Christian is this amazing guy that I don't really hang out with that much, but every now and then he invites me to do crazy stuff. Last semester, I stayed over at his uncle's house in NYC for Thanksgiving (which resulted in this video). Back then he invited me only a few days before break. Late last night he again invited me to impulsive action, this time to go Skydiving. Much fun :-)

I probably won't make a habit out of Skydiving, though, (expensive and environmentally questionable as it is,) but I hope to make a habit out of acting on impulse. I hope to make a habit of trying new things, make a habit of creating stories. Not always the most crazy stories, not necessarily the stories that everyone are talking about - the point of the story is not to be told, but to be lived. It is about staying alive.

By the way, this was an impulse my rationality considered pretty safe, despite my body's hesitance. Let me assure you, I do not think seeking a kick for it's own sake has a higher purpose - that would be stupid. So, yes, I think some skydivers are stupid. They are stupid when they do crazy stuff they can't possibly consider safe. I do not, however, think those many divers who discover beauty in the skies are stupid, as they simply jump to appreciate that. For them, it is not all about the kick anymore - it is about enjoying fresh air, the sun, the clouds, a magnificent view and an extra dimension of movement.

"Only skydivers know why the birds sing"
- Unknown
Read more:
Our host: Skydive PA

A beautiful break

The snow lay heavy as Spring break reached Pittsburgh. Luckily, I and the 14 other students who were travelling with “Carnegie Mellon Alternative Break” had no reason to care: We were going to the north-western Dominican Republic to volunteer for the organization Orphanage Outreach.


Orphanage Outreach (OO) is organizing western volunteers to serve in two different orphanages, local schools and an English institute. Carnegie Mellon, among other groups of voluenteers, was going to stay at the newer of the two orphanages for a week, in Jaibon (a small village along a highway of dirt connecting the major city Santiago and the town of Monte Cristi located at the north coast almost next to the Haitian boarder). “This is it.”

As opposed to countries like Norway and the US, “newer” is not always better, bigger and more shiny. While in the west we tend to complete buildings and facilities before we “open” them to be worn down, Dominicans use what they have even though it is not yet complete. In fact, using is not so much a process of tearing as it is a process of building. It was beautiful to see how OO adapted to this culture, teaching us how to build one block at a time and appreciate small steps of improvement. “Poco a poco.”

I am only one,
But still I am one.
I cannot do everything,
But still I can do something;
And because I cannot do everything
I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.

–— Edward Everett Hale

Spring break is volunteer season, so quite high numbers of beautiful people eager to serve was available to OO that week. About 250. In comparison, the Jaibon orphanage was at the time housing 27 kids. It was obvious that numbers were out of proportion – so OO asked the local schools if they’d like some “Americanas” to teach English to the kids. The schools were incredibly enthusiastic, since English educators – as valuable and appreciated as they are – are a rarity in the area. It turned out 250 volunteers wasn’t nearly enough to fill all the requests from the schools. But it was still beautiful how OO served their community not by imposing some outside idea on them, but by assisting the community with competence the community were calling for. “Serve, don’t help.”

OO has the same attitude towards the orphanages – which are not ran and organised by OO, but supported by OO. Beautiful local Dominicans run the orphanages, and OO was careful to respect their ideals and the principles by which they ran them. The application of this attitude included an over average strict dress code and a ban against any non-Christian music. But it was beautiful, precisely because of these sacrifices. “It’s not about you.”

Our group was sent to teach 6th and 8th graders in one of the schools not affiliated with the orphanage. I hoped the kids would know some English to start with, especially since these were pretty high levels. But no. Me knowing no Spanish whatsoever, except “gracias” and “la factura, por favor,” I was going to hang out with kids speaking only Spanish for a week. Luckily, fun is a language of its own, and we could play volleyball, catch, frisbee and something that vaguely reminds us of football (a beautiful sport you play with your feet, in case there was any doubt) without any worries as far as language was concerned. The kids even made me play baseball with them, which must have been pretty entertaining, judging by the laugh I received as I waved seemingly purposeless with the bat (I was actually trying to hit the ball, but I’m not sure how well I managed to communicate that message). “Communicate love.”

But anyhow, our mission was to teach English. With my teaching group of fellow CMU students, we planned out some ideas for how to communicate with the class using body language, games and drawings. And with three of five team members above an intermediate level of Spanish fluency, we all found a useful role to play. Even when we split up into groups and I was alone with the kids, I did fine – the kids indeed got the message, because they really tried to get the message. OO says you do not need to know Spanish to communicate love. I found you neither need to know Spanish to communicate English. It was cool to see how excited many of the kids, especially my group of 8th-graders, were to learn. Students from other classes would even listen in on the teaching from the open windows; it was beautiful to see that we made a difference. “Acknowledge yourself.”


This is just a small fraction of what I experienced. I could have dedicated pages to every one of the ten, I must say beautiful, principles Orphanage Outreach is run by. They were all means by which OO was trying to fulfill its stated goal for the week: “Release the Hero within.” And so they did; OO facilitated heroism in the volunteers, the volunteers inspired heroism in the kids, and we all supported and cherished the heroism of those running the orphanage. And as we were fundraising for the trip, we also released the hero in everyone who chose to support us financially or with food or school supplies. I got many new heroes during this trip.

Now we hope to bring that sunshine from Jaibon to Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon. At the very least, we successfully brought the actual weather with us, because now summer is almost all over the place here in Pittsburgh; little is left of the thick winter coat we left behind. But more importantly, we want to inspire new generations of Alternative Breakers and spread the Alternative Break mindset across campus – ultimately releasing the heroes within many more.




Read more:
OO: Orphanage Outreach
Carnegie Mellon: Alternative Break
YouTube: Happiness in the Jaibon schools (DR)
veoh: Nathan and Liana's video
Our awesome trip leader: Nathan Frank