When not seeing is believing

Posted by Helen on: 10.05.2006 /

There’s an interesting article about faith and politics in TIME magazine this week:

When Not Seeing Is Believing: Andrew Sullivan on the rise of fundamentalism and why embracing spiritual doubt is the key to defusing the tension between East and West

Here are some extended excerpts about faith from it (you’ll need to read the whole article to see how he links faith and politics):

Complete calm comes from complete certainty. In today’s unnerving, globalizing, sometimes terrifying world, such religious certainty is a balm more in demand than ever. In the new millennium, Muslims are not alone in grasping the relief of submission to authority.

[...]

In Protestant Christianity, especially in the U.S., the loudest voices are the most certain and uncompromising. Many megachurches, which preach absolute adherence to inerrant Scripture, are thriving, while more moderate denominations are on the decline. That sense of certainty has even entered democratic politics in the U.S. We have, after all, a proudly born-again President. And religious certainty surely cannot be disentangled from George W. Bush’s utter conviction that he has made no mistakes in Iraq. “My faith frees me,” the President once wrote. “Frees me to make the decisions that others might not like. Frees me to do the right thing, even though it may not poll well. Frees me to enjoy life and not worry about what comes next.” In every messy context, the President seeks succor in a simple certainty–good vs. evil, terror vs. freedom–without sensing that wars are also won in the folds of uncertainty and guile, of doubt and tactical adjustment that are alien to the fundamentalist psyche.

I remember in my own faith journey that in those moments when I felt most lost in the world, I moved toward the absolutist part of my faith and gripped it with the white knuckles of fear. I brooked no dissent and patrolled my own soul for any hint of doubt. I required a faith not of sandstone but of granite.

[...]

Many Western liberals and secular types look at the zealotry closing in on them and draw an obvious conclusion: religion is the problem. [...]There is, however, a way out. And it will come from the only place it can come from–the minds and souls of people of faith. It will come from the much derided moderate Muslims, tolerant Jews and humble Christians. The alternative to the secular-fundamentalist death spiral is something called spiritual humility and sincere religious doubt. Fundamentalism is not the only valid form of faith, and to say it is, is the great lie of our time.

[The other kind of] faith begins with the assumption that the human soul is fallible, that it can delude itself, make mistakes and see only so far ahead. That, after all, is what it means to be human. No person has had the gift of omniscience. Yes, Christians may want to say that of Jesus. But even the Gospels tell us that Jesus doubted on the Cross, asking why his own father seemed to have abandoned him. The mystery that Christians are asked to embrace is not that Jesus was God but that he was God-made-man, which is to say, prone to the feelings and doubts and joys and agonies of being human. Jesus himself seemed to make a point of that. He taught in parables rather than in abstract theories. He told stories. He had friends. He got to places late; he misread the actions of others; he wept; he felt disappointment; he asked as many questions as he gave answers; and he was often silent in self-doubt or elusive or afraid.

God-as-Omniscience, by definition, could do and be none of those things. Hence, the sacrifice entailed in God becoming man. So, at the core of the very Gospels on which fundamentalists rely for their passionate certainty is a definition of humanness that is marked by imperfection and uncertainty. Even in Jesus. Perhaps especially in Jesus.

[...]

In [non-fundamentalist] faith, doubt is not a threat. If we have never doubted, how can we say we have really believed? True belief is not about blind submission. It is about open-eyed acceptance, and acceptance requires persistent distance from the truth, and that distance is doubt. Doubt, in other words, can feed faith, rather than destroy it. And it forces us, even while believing, to recognize our fundamental duty with respect to God’s truth: humility. We do not know. Which is why we believe.

In this sense, our religion, our moral life, is simply what we do. A Christian is not a Christian simply because she agrees to conform her life to some set of external principles or dogmas, or because at a particular moment in her life, she experienced a rupture and changed herself entirely. She is a Christian primarily because she acts like one. She loves and forgives; she listens and prays; she contemplates and befriends; her faith and her life fuse into an unself-conscious unity that affirms a tradition of moral life and yet also makes it her own. In that nonfundamentalist understanding of faith, practice is more important than theory, love is more important than law, and mystery is seen as an insight into truth rather than an obstacle.


Semi-Related Posts


7 Responses to "When not seeing is believing"

  • Comment by: NCxian

    1 10/5/06 5:34 AM | Comment Link |

    Thanks for finding and posting this, Helen!

    Sullivan speaks very eloquently about a subject that has been a regular topic of conversation over at the atheist/christian discussion board (humility, certainty). Most of the regular Christian dialoguers there are folks who would agree in large part with Sullivan.

    We have had some conversations about whether there is light at the end of the tunnel so far as the country (the world) going hopelessly down the fundamentalist, legalist, militant path. This article is evidence, IMO, that some folks are beginning to think so, at least the editors at Time Magazine who try to have a finger on the pulse of popular thought.

  • Comment by: David H

    2 10/5/06 3:28 PM | Comment Link |

    This article is evidence, IMO, that some folks are beginning to think so, at least the editors at Time Magazine who try to have a finger on the pulse of popular thought.

    Of course they are part of the liberal media and, as such, can perhaps be discounted by many.

    Being a member of the “liberal media” myself, I find quite a bit of personal resonance with those words.

    Hope the following link works better than previous attempts, but people should be able to find the full text here:
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541466,00.html

  • Comment by: Helen

    3 10/5/06 3:39 PM | Comment Link |

    Thanks NCxian and David.

    NCxian feel free to post links to any db discussions you think are particularly relevant.

    David, sorry if the link I gave didn’t work. I edited what I posted, so it uses your link instead of mine.

  • Comment by: David H

    4 10/5/06 5:09 PM | Comment Link |

    Helen, my reference to links not working were to some abortive attempts of mine previously. Truth be told, I missed yours entirely, which I’ll blame on still recovering from a cold. However, if yours didn’t go directly to Time.com, they may be happier with the change. That way we’re driving traffic to them — which helps to pay their bills. Us liberal media types tend to stick together.

  • Comment by: Helen

    5 10/5/06 7:25 PM | Comment Link |

    My link was only slightly different from yours, David - it did go directly to the magazine. Maybe it was fine but I figured I’d use yours just in case!

    A friend told me this evening that Andrew Sullivan has a blog. If anyone wants to read more of his writing, it’s here:

    The Daily Dish

  • Comment by: Paul

    6 10/6/06 3:49 AM | Comment Link |

    Many Western liberals and secular types look at the zealotry closing in on them and draw an obvious conclusion: religion is the problem. [...]There is, however, a way out. And it will come from the only place it can come from—the minds and souls of people of faith. It will come from the much derided moderate Muslims, tolerant Jews and humble Christians. The alternative to the secular-fundamentalist death spiral is something called spiritual humility and sincere religious doubt. Fundamentalism is not the only valid form of faith, and to say it is, is the great lie of our time.

    I so agree. Fundamentalism in the sense the article uses it is based on a fear that pulls us into a polarised world of are with us or against us. What we need instead is to know/learn how to lovingly coexist, something I explored recenty here when I was stunned by how so many faiths have the golden rule at the heart of their teachings (the golden rule = do to others what you would want done to you).

    What as christians are we so scared of? As a christian I feel that we have a message of love, hope, compassion and practical care - that faith compels me to love my neighbour, not hate him.. it commnads me to serve the poor, the broken, the hurting not worry about whether they’ll sign up to my belief statement. It asks me to live in a way that is about giving not getting, about laying down my rights not demanding that my ways get done…

    The point of it all is that I cannot do any of that on my own, it is too huge and my selfishness too great, it’s why I believe in and follow Jesus as my model/mentor/maker.

    I know i can not do that perfect and will always struggle against my desire to self determine against myself but If i cannot at least try to live out what I believe, to embrace a life of loving about how to love through loving - then why should I expect anyone else to want to have anything to do with the God i claim to represent?

  • Comment by: Helen

    7 10/6/06 6:32 AM | Comment Link |

    Paul, great comments!

    I reposted them here:

    What as Christians are we so scared of?

Subscribe without commenting