A month ago I wrote the post There’s No Such Thing as “Faith”. This intended to challenge the “contemporary fundamentalist” or conservative-literalist definition of “faith” in order to talk about the more human, non-rational, emotional or psychological meanings of the word, or concepts the word could refer to, and does refer to for a particular subset of Christianity.
Some of the discussions that post sparked were particularly interesting and in line with what I was hoping for, others went off on a tangent. The most recent comment by Bendul got right back on topic. First an extract from Bendul’s comment (do also go read the comment in full):
I want to stab at a different interpetation of this. what if the substance of things hoped for is in a sense “being the change you want to see in the world” becoming the substance of the things you hope for? what if the evidence of things not seen refers to going against the mainstream – the things seen (selfishness, hate, arrogance) – and providing evidence that there is hope for contrived mankind?
This very much touches on a meaning of “faith” that I consider valuable and important. And it reminds me of a friend’s blog post that I’ve been meaning to share. This friend of mine came from a Christian background, and walked a path that led him to explore Buddhism. I think there is much we can learn about our own religions by looking at others’ religions. In contemplating (the good and the bad of) something not so close to home can provide renewed and improved insight into our own traditions.
Please now go read the post Taking Precepts on a friend’s blog, Bertus Gaan Huis Toe.
Bertus, do you mind if I copy your entire blog post here? For now just an extract, please do read the original in full, it isn’t very long:
[...]
I have sometimes wondered why tulkus, young Tibetan children who get identified as the reincarnation of lamas at an early age, so often do indeed grow up to be wise and gifted meditators and teachers. Apart from any supernatural explanation I have come to believe it is because they are told from an early age that they are lamas – eventually they come to believe it, they start to act like lamas, the world responds to them as lamas, and before they long they turn into real lamas.
[...]
It is a way of being the change you want to and expect one day to see in the world.
[...]
This talks about a kind of “divine” life path you could commit to, the kind of commitment you can tackle in your own religion, or if your own religion has become too polluted to see such a path clearly it may be the kind of life path you more easily find through investigating a tradition not so close to home. The latter new perspective, less obscured by culturally piled-on tradition, could provide a fresh view. And it is also the kind of commitment you can make as a humanist.
And that is the kind of “faith” we are trying to talk about, a concept that can clearly also apply to Christianity, a commitment to a renewed life of living out the change you want to see and expect to see in the world, a choice to “become a member of the body of Christ”, about being God’s hands and feet in this world.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Bendul // Mar 3, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Hmmm. Interesting take on my imaginings Hugo. The buddhist transformative idea- even though it does resonate with me on some level- kind of leaves me a bit cold. I guess I find buddhism dualistically too fatalistic and too autonomous at the same time.
An amazing piece of theological reflection struck me reading John Steinbeck’s “east of eden”. A chinese butler (from a buddhist family) encounters the story of cain and abel and becomes fascinated with God’s command to cain: “Thou shalt rule over sin”. long story short he takes this story to Some wise uncles who studies the original hebrew text and finds that this little word “shalt” (timshell) is quite ambiguious.
Thou shalt- or else (ball in your court – complete autonomy)
Thou shalt- after all (ball in God’s court – complete fatalism)
but the narrative illuminating interpretation is
Thou Canst (i.e. It is possible for you, with a little help)
I find this to be the stunning underemphasised metanarrative of the bible- God who creates creatures- not fatalistically, not perfectly autonomously, but woven together.
I hope this makes sense…
Thou shalt
2 Bendul // Mar 3, 2010 at 1:27 pm
To try and be more concise:
I don’t think believe that because i choose to be a good guy, and keep motivating myself to do good things that i will necessarily be a good guy when the shit hits the fan.
Conversely I don’t believe that even if the shit does keep hitting the fan, someone is bound to a miserable unhappy nasty life.
The fate/choice binary stumps me. I have stabbed at a more “interactive/organic” idea of…erm…life, but i feel my alternative is crude. Not sure that kind of thing can be firmly held by language. Now Im sounding like a mystic. Well. Thats one thing I really appreciate about buddhism- the wonder, the silence. I cannot escape the idea that only wonder can really know. Language can only represent*.
*nothing wrong with representation. Please lets not go into another utilitarian debate guys
(Sorry for the train of thought. Mehbleh)
3 Bendul // Mar 3, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I think Bertus nails it when he mentions that Christianity has become largely dominated by orthodoxy, but Buddhism is concerned with Orthopraxy. I think it is possible to invert these statemnts for both belief systems. For instance charismatic christianity has become increasingly obsessed with the “do’s and don’ts”
I think its problematic when orthodoxy is collapsed into “as long as I think right Im ok for the future” (i.e. Fatalism) or when orthopraxy is collapsed into “i am able to achieve somr kind of salvation by just trying hard enough” (i.e. Autonomism)
Might it just be the mutual exclusivism of such viewpoint that turn me off of them per se? Or can we find some kind of helpfull sybthesis of faith as Hugo seems to suggest?
4 Bendul // Mar 3, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Eek iphone spelling errs. Sybthesis= synthesis…
5 Hugo // Mar 9, 2010 at 1:52 am
Hoi! A bit overloaded on this side. Just wanted to mention for the time being: thanks for the comments, I’m very eager to respond as soon as I’m able to make some time. Give me another day or two…
6 Hugo // Mar 17, 2010 at 12:48 am
…and it took a week. But hey, at least here’s a comment.
For those following but not sure about the words, a quick definition: Orthopraxy: all about doing the right thing, behaving the right way. “Have the right practices, then you’re good, you’re ‘saved’.” Orthodoxy: all about believing the right thing. “Have the correct beliefs, then you’re good.” Any questions?
On to responding to Bendul’s comments:
#1: You find Buddhism too fatalistic and too autonomous? Heh, nice paradox! Good explanation, two poles in conflict, and a third option. Thou shalt… Where would the strongly authoritarian theologies fall on that spectrum, in which human’s role is to blindly follow without question? Probably also not on any pole: autonomous choice to not be autonomous? Autonomous choice to accept and follow your divine fate?
#2: Nice! And in agreement.
#3: Charismatic Christianity’s angle on “do’s and don’ts” as emphasis on orthopraxy? Wow, why’s this the first time I make that connection!
(In my mind that is. You made the connection before me, then I made the connection thanks to your representation of the connection you’ve made.)
On the topic of the interplay between orthopraxy and orthodoxy, an idea I verbalised in 2003 when I first really started grappling with my conservative heritage). I had been asked a question that touched on the orthopraxy/orthodoxy thing, and I commented (while doubting my foundations): “Sure, believing Jesus is God is the primary thing, but if you really believe that, it would affect everything you do, your behaviour would necessarily be affected.” Surely some fully internalised orthodoxy would necessarily spill over into some kind of orthopraxy?
Or am I now abusing these words? With the example of violent-extremist-fundamentalists, beliefs are spilling over into terrible actions. Actions condemned by progressives of all faiths. Arguably then spilling from incorrect beliefs. If orthodoxy is “God is love/compassion”, then the orthopraxy that goes with that would be to live that out to one another.
And the other approach, to live that out towards one another, or to live in a community where that is lived out, would result, for a theist, in a God-concept of love/compassion, so orthopraxy also leads to orthodoxy.
Am I saying the same thing you are?
Briefly back to the Buddhist example, I don’t think that that example is solely a case of “-praxy” leading to “-doxy”, choosing to live that way, choosing to commit to the “-praxy”, already requires some sense of believing it’s the good thing to do, so “-doxy” is already involved?
7 Hugo // Mar 17, 2010 at 12:50 am
(We’re abusing “ortho-” in our conversation. I bet especially those from an “Orthodox” denomination could get heart-attacks about how we throw those words around.
Or I should speak for myself…)
8 Bendul // Mar 17, 2010 at 11:33 am
Hugo
We’re definiz on teh same page.
Thing is – I think ALL -praxis is informed by -doxis, no exception, actions are motivated. Which raises the question “is an unconscious doxis possible?”
Which is interesting in the light of my experience. For instance. My belief in Creationism led to some nasty orthopraxy, behaviourally speaking (ARROGANCE!!!) But Checks: it was motivated, not by the conscious orthodoxy of being “bible-believing” (as i would most certainly have qualified it at the time) but by an unconscious fear of being unorthodox – being a headstrong goat & being condemned! So often I think there’s a massive inner dualism between percieved/conscious orthodoxies, and their true/unconscious motivation.
Leave a Comment