There is a faith that is primarily belief. This kind of faith calls for definitive doctrines from which guiding objectives and priorities can be derived. And there is a faith that is primarily trust. This kind of faith expects to be guided by a unifying presence that enlivens each moment, breaks all borders, gathers us into communion with one another, and addresses us in all we meet. For faith as belief, it makes sense to ask how all we presently encounter can be used to achieve our (or God's) objecives; the present must be sacrificed to the future. For faith as trust, the future we hope for must emerge out of a fulfilled present; to treat any being or situation we meet only as a means to be used or as an obstacle to be eliminated attacks the historically unique liberating power with which every person and every community is endowed.--Jim Corbett
December 6, 2008
Two kinds of belief
December 6, 2008
I recently indulged myself with a series of comments on my friend Serenity's post about church-going and communion. Oddly enough, I found this quote that seems pertinent to those comments in the front of a paperback mystery I am reading. There are several Jim Corbett's, including a famous hunter and a famous prize-fighter, but I'm assuming that this Jim Corbett was the Quaker activist who was a co-founder of the Sanctuary movement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 Comments:
I like that. The 2 really cannot be separated.
Some think "doctrine is not imprortant" but as belief it really defines and allows us to trust with are heart.
To separate one from the other leads to cold orthodoxy on one hand and emotionalism on the other, IMO.
Yes, it is extremely liberating to, as you wrote on my blog, believe ("trust", I think, if I'm understanding these definitions) that it is something outside each of us that actually does the uniting.
Steve--My first instinct was to disagree (You might guess that I lean heavily toward the "trust" definition); but after further thought, I decided I agree. Jesus summed up all the law nicely in love, and I do think that this must always be our guide as we interpret our present experience.
Serenity--Yeah, either that or everyone could come to their senses and realize that I know everything. Not. :-)
Matt,
I kind of figured you were choosing one over the other instead of both hand-in-hand. But
I thought you’d come around to my point of view (what are friends for anyway but to point out your errors) ;).
I think too many people that have “left the church” have not seen this.
God decides what love is and so we are not left to our own ideas of how to define it.
Paul says the goal of the commandment is "love from a pure heart, a sincere conscious, and unfeigned faith.
Once we see that in the light of the Cross doctrine becomes a guide instead of a burden to be kept.
For example a man and a woman say, “but we love each other” however they are already married to someone else. So we can say with confidence, “that’s not love” by God’s definition. It may feel like love to us but it must be something else. We need to then examine the commandments and ask God to help us see.
Steve--I would have to say you are interpreting my comment in a much more Lutheran way than I would; but, then, I interpreted your comment in a much less Lutheran way than you would. I guess that makes us even!
By "left the church" I do not mean that to be in any judgemental manner. Heck , joining a more traditional one has its own battles.
BTW, the area (North County) I work is a very Black, Pentecostal, type of crowd mixed with a Roman Catholic white population..
A white employee asked me about this "annointing" that they see done by both groups...
"Well, they white people are getting you ready to die and the blacks are trying to avoid it... so which one do YOU want to join..."
Post a Comment