Don't Tell Me What I Should Believe!

"Don't tell me what I should believe!"

Whether expressed with these exact words, or in some other form, I find it both fascinating and troubling how deeply this sentiment appears to be embedded within the church-at-large.  And it's certainly not unique to the deconstructing postmodernists among us!  Its much more widespread than that, being touted across generational and perhaps even ideological lines.

As I see it, we're standing in the midst of a culture that worships the autonomy of "self" -- a culture that empowers the legitimacy, authority, and infallibility of the individual.  This is an emphasis which has been relentless in its undermining of social institutions: marriage, family, church, and communal responsibility.  Why?  Cause it's all about me!  MY needs, MY wants, MY ideas, MY beliefs.

And when such a person's beliefs clash with those held by their community of faith -- or better yet -- when they clash with the "trajectory of belief," which Christians in all places at all times have always believed...  well, then it's time in either words or actions to resort to the inevitable: "Don't tell me what to believe!"

Our churches are filled with people so addicted to the tenants of radical individualism, they are completely oblivious to how it is raping and pillaging our faith.  Tradition, reason, and the authority of the scriptures are so quickly being set aside in favor of "personal beliefs."  And the arrogance of such a hermeneutic is all too often ignored.

In the days of Israel's kings, it was Ba'al worship which often seduced God's people into committing spiritual adultery -- something the prophets repeated railed them for.  Today, the idol of choice is no farther away than our own mirrors. And the infidelity continues.

Lord, help us!

Our Orthodox brethren remind us of the importance of letting our ancestors have a say in what we believe.  To do so requires humility, surrender, a teachable spirit, and a greater sense of faith.  These are qualities we desperately need more of -- qualities that just might lead to our deliverance from self.

.

Your thoughts?

Comments

[Mark Diebel]

Well... what you say seems pretty true... society and our times moves very strongly towards individualism. This has been noted for some time now. Wasn't part of the Soviet (or Red) Revolution devoted to quashing the "private life?" More recently Pol Pot was disturbed by tendencies towards individualism in Cambodia!

Maybe the way ahead is more at cultivating the individual and thinking what the appearance of the individual means as a historical fact.

From my vantage point many people notice this sort of thing but most seem to want to replace the individual with a group and never pause to ask how or wonder if the individual is fulfilling some purpose regarding freedom.

Maybe another truer solution lies in considering that the indivdual is just as necessary as the group... neither can properly or healthfully develop without the other at the same time.

In your terms it answers the question, "who surrenders?"... "who becomes humble?" The individual surrenders, freely... and only freely... or else the danger is a destruction or deviation.

[Chris]

Mark, this was a great observation:

"From my vantage point many people notice this sort of thing but most seem to want to replace the individual with a group and never pause to ask how or wonder if the individual is fulfilling some purpose regarding freedom. "

It's fairly common for me to lay blame on our overly individualistic nature. But I believe that you are probably looking toward a more balanced view -- one that holds our need for individual responsibility and action in tension with our need to break free from ourselves and learn to live in true community.

I suppose that a complete surrendering of our individuality would be equally disasterous -- and would probably be abused in one way or another as a serious "cop-out".

Your thoughts

[FrMatt]

Hey Chris,

Great Post! It is interesting that that your post illicits comments on authority off the bat. You frame your premise in favor of a Vincentian or "Consensual" Universalism (catholicism. But this autonomous individualism is so ingrained in American nature that we imagine individuality to be swollowed up in surrender to what has always and at all times been beleived. This need not be so, what we have to learn is that "I" am not the locus of authority. This is a puny Papalism.

[Benjy]

Great thoughts once again. The only problem with this argument is agreeing on what the "the trajectory of belief,which Christians in all places at all times have always believed." Isn't this more of a myth than actual reality?

Sure, I think there are a few things that fall in line with this, but not nearly as much as we would care to admit. The creeds, anything else.

The church doesn't have a good track record. We have been wrong about the earth being flat, how we have treated women, we have used scripture to justiy the crusades and slavery.

So many people who are now currently questioning what they believe I think stems from something besides just individualism. Sure, that's part of it. But I don't see the widespread arrogance that you are speaking of, I don't see people saying this is right, this is the way it has to be: that was people who went before us. We are saying we have found what we don't believe, let's find out together what is true. This lies behind the widespread deconstruction on topics like hell, homosexuality, etc.

[Seraphim]

Benjy said:

"Great thoughts once again. The only problem with this argument is agreeing on what the "the trajectory of belief,which Christians in all places at all times have always believed." Isn't this more of a myth than actual reality?"

Only if you're not Orthodox.

I'll comment more later.

[Chris]

FrMatt - as always, your thoughts are excellent.

"what we have to learn is that "I" am not the locus of authority."

Yes. That's right. And my 'hunch' is that's why we empower ourselves to either embrace or dismiss faith tenants previously considered orthodox (e.g. see Benjy's remarks above). However, I must say that it is important to "test" what we believe (e.g. the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12), yet we must at some point draw the line and choose to limit our self-appointed authority, don't you think?

[Chris]

"Only if you're not Orthodox."

Seraphim, you crack me up! I love you, man.

[Chris]

Benjy, I'm curious what has led to you thinking:

"'the trajectory of belief,which Christians in all places at all times have always believed.' Isn't this more of a myth than actual reality?"

[FrMatt]

Some thoughts: First the "myth of common trajectory" as Seraphim tells, is only myth to those not orthodox. The myth is in suggesting, that "The church doesn't have a good track record. We have been wrong about the earth being flat, how we have treated women, we have used scripture to justiy the crusades and slavery." None of these postions can be evidenced as having the witness of "antiquity, universality or ecumenicity" (to use the words of St Vincent). This old arguement is thoroughly modern, shallow and revisionist in it's origin. Just ask the revisionist Bishops of ECUSA.

Soecondly, We do have to test the spirits; the scriptures are "Jesus", and then the texts. We then have to limit ourselves to what such an orthodoxy circumscribes.

And finally, for those who have decided on what they do not believe, how can they decide on what is "true" if they are still the locus of authority rather than submitting to The Church? Such a proposiion is circular in its reasoning. And just who is refered to in the the "let's find out together what is true?" Who does this include? Because many Emergents and revisionists use the same language but fail to include the ancient witness of the church or those who are still orthodox. Such people are considered anachronisitic, or "modern" or IC, or something of the sort. So, if we want to reason together, lets include the entire church throghout the ages. The consensus lies there, in orthodoxy, not in a postmodern rethinking of the church that off-handedly discounts 2000 years of monumental minds and martyrs.

[FrMatt]

In testing the spirits comment I should have added "the great tradition", but I think i've already made that point.

[Seraphim]

I'll allow FrMatt misquoting me.. (he changed the O in Orthodoxy from a Capital to a lower case... lol)

Anyway, Chris I didn't want to eat up space on your blog.. so my 'further' answer is Here

Love ya ma

Seraphim

[Chris]

FrMatt, I think that postmodern, emerging church leaders do, in fact, appreciate the "2000 years of monumental minds and martyrs." What I sometimes worry about is that we draw on that for our own convenience or purposes, and fail to contemplate its deeper level of meaning.

[SteveJ]

I appreciate your comments about runaway individualism. But what happens when we're told to believe something that doesn't strike us as believable? Conviction isn't something that we switch on at will. If a given doctrine doesn't have a subjective ring of truth to it, all my efforts to force it upon myself (even for the sake of unity) are futile.

That raises a more basic question: Why do we all have to believe identical things, anyway? Can't we agree on something basic (roughly approximating the Apostles Creed) and allow broad freedom of thought beyond that?

We all come out of different experiences and look at life through different lenses. I'm not St. Augustine, so I can't be expected to apprehend truth the same way he did in the fifth century.

[FDR]

But what happens when we're told to believe something that doesn't strike us as believable?

Er, faith? ;-) Seriously, I have a hard time with "this is my body...this is my blood..." To me it just looks like bread and wine. But Jesus said it, so I "believe" it, contrary to what my senses tell me.

Why do we all have to believe identical things, anyway? Can't we agree on something basic (roughly approximating the Apostles Creed) and allow broad freedom of thought beyond that?

Well, that was why the early Church put together the creeds. But as we know, alot of modern Christians dispense w/ doctrines enumerated, for "just me and Jesus."

We all come out of different experiences and look at life through different lenses. I'm not St. Augustine, so I can't be expected to apprehend truth the same way he did in the fifth century.

Steve I think this is true. Would you say that "aprehending truth" differently is about first acknowleding that there is a "truth to apprehend?"

[Chris]

Steve and FDR -- I'm thoroughly enjoying your posts. Good questions, Steve -- it's important we think through issues like these. Good answers FDR -- I appreciate your presence here.

[Gary Manders]

I think you have hit the nail on the head, this is a pervading problem in todays culture and I have to admit I am an addict in need of recovery. Individualism is the culture in which we breathe. The church in my mind has to be a place for recovery and learning how to live differently. A very insightful post.

[Gary Manders]

Some further reflections on a stimulating post. What happens when we acquiesce to the authority of the church in terms of belief and it abuses its power? Is there a balance to be struck between personal conviction and communal belief? Is it a question of the bare essentials of belief, but where do we draw the line? I guess there is a tension that should not be collapsed by focusing on just one of the two poles. Afterall, bad doctrine costs lives.

[FDR]

Glad to be here DP, I love your blog. Thanks for the warmth!

[FDR]

Hi Gary
What happens when we acquiesce to the authority of the church in terms of belief and it abuses its power?

First I would say, that the Church, if it is the Divine institution of Christ's body (as I believe), then IT can't abuse me. But I am fully aware of the human element (for it is a human institution as well, like Christ being 100%Man and 100% divine) and its potential for abuse...expereincing it first hand. But I would say that it is the ainful men in the Church who are and can be abusive, not the living Church itself. (ironic and full of mystery I know)

Is there a balance to be struck between personal conviction and communal belief?
I believe there is. There is always human freedom.

Afterall, bad doctrine costs lives.
Amen. Ideas have consequences.

[Seraphim]

Gary said:

"What happens when we acquiesce to the authority of the church in terms of belief and it abuses its power? Is there a balance to be struck between personal conviction and communal belief?"

Well, the thoughts that strike me about this are two fold. First off, we believe that no matter who the Bishop/Patriarch the Head of our Church is none other than God Himself. And surely He loves his bridge as much as we do? Maybe He is showing us what's going on to pray and intercede or approach in brotherly love from the sidelines.

The 2nd thought is we have a responsibility vis a vi Acts 4:19.

I'shalom!

Seraphim

[Benjy]

"Our Orthodox brethren remind us of the importance of letting our ancestors have a say in what we believe."

I think the important difference is in letting them have a say, vs. letting them have THE SAY. There are many traditional things that we just don't believe in or practice any longer, not simply b/c of getting rid of tradition, but b/c they were wrong. We also need to remember that now what is tradition was at one point a break with tradition.

I was recently reading about how Jewish rabbis always had their interpretations of the Torah, and how they determined what to do or not do was called binding and loosing. And in a likewise fashion, we (the church) must constantly discuss, pray and wrestle with what it means to interpret the scriptures.

The Bible has to be interpreted over and over and over again, not because truth changes, but because times do. Doctrines are not an end in and of themselves. And this is something that people have always struggled with: trying to talk about God when God is bigger than our words, minds, traditions and worldviews.

[Benjy]

I am not trying to dismiss the early creeds or say that we don't need any creeds. And just like the scriptures, while we affirm the creeds in unity and orthodoxy, don't they also need to be interpreted? Are heaven and hell literal physical places? What is meant by Jesus descending into hell for 3 days, etc. ?

Oh well, hopefully you can understand a little better where I was coming from.

The process of interpreting the scriptures in order to live out our faith was meant to be an ongoing, dynamic process rather than something that was just given to us a one place and time in history.

[Karl Thienes]

"There are many traditional things that we just don't believe in or practice any longer, not simply b/c of getting rid of tradition, but b/c they were wrong."

How do you know they are wrong? Based on what authority do you state that so categorically? Why should I trust your metanarrative vs the Church's? You see the problem here, I'm sure.....

"don't they also need to be interpreted?"

Of course. But the Orthodox don't have a static view of this process. Holy Tradition is the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church throughout time and space. It is the teaching of the saints put into practice and proven to be true by personal experience by millions of the saints.

[Chris]

Karl, it's always great to hear from you.

I think that Benjy was trying to say(he'll have to clarify, himself) that the church has had to "drop" some positions/practices over the centuries, not because they were "traditions" (and thus, deserving of such), but that they were grevious errors (e.g. The Inquisition, the Crusades, the selling of indulgences, etc.).

Many pomo's, however, regularly assert their right to deconstruct all beliefs previously held to be orthodox, including the creeds. But that's a topic that could fill volumes!

I appreciate your voice here (and elsewhere), and the balance you help to bring. Thanks.

[Karl Thienes]

"e.g. The Inquisition, the Crusades, the selling of indulgences, etc"

But notice how these are all unique to the western experience of Christianity! I suppose my point for Benjy was to challenge him to consider whether his conclusions about creeds, tradition, authority, etc are all predicated on solely the western experience (and in many cases, abuse) of those things. The whole argument changes when you bring Orthodoxy into the picture.

Thanks for letting me chime in, Chris. You always host good discussions.