Wednesday, December 24, 2008

If you're not listening to Mannheim Steamroller, you should be.

Born out of boredom, sloth, and inactivity, my thoughts have been unpleasant lately (all revolving around a hungry gnawing core, obsession slinking through the bedroom, yellow-slitted eyes wide – you know how it is), which is why I had difficulty sleeping, which is why I got up early, which resulted in green tea, the synthesized/medieval christmas music of Mannheim Steamroller (practically the only christmas music worth listening to, if you ask me), and reading the Bible, which in turn resulted in a free blogpost for you! Merry Christmas!
You may be less pleased to learn that it deals principally with points of Christian Theology. Or perhaps more pleased. Who can say.
Anyway. I’ve been reading Søren Kierkegaard some lately, and need to read more, but he’s gotten me thinking about faith. Which is what I’m going to talk about. “Hebrews 11, Levi?” those of you who’ve done time in church ask. “Why, yes – however did you guess?” I reply. Not the whole chapter; I will be selective.
Hebrews 11: 4 (English Standard Version, which is an excellent version until it starts talking about porcupines haunting the ruins of Babylon notwithstanding the fact that the porcupine is a distinctly New World species, unless I am much mistaken. One of those words they had no idea how to translate – and they’re Bible scholars, not zoologists. Well, I think it’s funny.) “By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts.” Now I had always wondered why Abel’s sacrifice was more acceptable than Cain’s – if you know the story, Abel and Cain were the sons of Adam and Eve; Cain was a farmer, and Abel was a shepherd. They both offered their respective commodities, and God, apparently arbitrarily, decided he liked Abel’s better. Cain flipped out and killed Abel. Now, at last, I have the explanation: they were playing Settlers of Catan. God already had plenty of wheat, and so traded his ore for Abel’s sheep instead of Cain’s wheat. As a result, Abel was able (haha) to build a city, and thus won. Cain, whose play was theoretically much better and who SHOULD HAVE WON EXCEPT EVERYONE KEPT FRIGGIN ROLLING ELEVENS, killed his brother in a fit of anger. I know people who would agree with me that nothing is more likely to have inspired the first killing rage than losing a game of Settlers.
Queso. Serious now. Hebrews 11:1. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Lo, a definition. Unpack. Faith is “assurance” and “conviction” – in other words, it is certainty, it does not waver. “Of things not seen” – the object of faith is not something apparent. If you are reasonably certain that the U.S. Cavalry will show up and save your sorry hide, since you did send messengers, carrier pigeons, and smoke signals, and the nearest fort is just a mile or two up the river, and listen! that might be them now – that’s not faith. Faith is when you’re on Mars and you expect the U.S. Cavalry to show up and save your sorry hide. This particular faith is probably stupid. However, it can look much the same as a well-placed faith from the outside. Which is confusing, and I apologize. Let me put it this way: Damon and Phidias (I think those are the correct names, let me consult Edith Hamilton – WHAT? YOU FAIL, EDITH. Wikipedia it is, then. Oh! It’s Pythias, not Phidias (he was an ancient sculptor. Discobolos, maybe.)) Right. Damon and Pythias. Pythias hacks off some local king, who decides he’s gonna kill him. Pythias says he has to go do something first in a very distant country. The king is like, “Yeah. Sure. What kind of idiot ­–” and Damon is like, “No, it’s cool. He’s legit.” and the king is like, “O RLY?” and Damon is like “YA RLY and you can kill me if he doesn’t get back in time.” and the king is like “OHO! You are a fool.” and Pythias goes off and everyone sits around twiddling their thumbs and then the king is like “He’s not back. You die.” and Damon is like “My Westley will come for me.” and Pythias is like “What’s up, guys? Sorry I’m late. Pirates, dontcha know.” and the king is so impressed that he doesn’t kill either of them. That’s similar to faith – that kind of trust can be considered illogical in that many if not most people would simply scarper given this opportunity. Well, perhaps not – perhaps you’ve read friend Pythias like a book, and you know he’s such a sap that he’ll be back if he possibly can – even if you can trust his intentions, it may not be logical to trust his ability to get there and back in the given amount of time. After all, shit happens (like pirates). But let us say that Pythias is a badass of epic proportions. Being dead will not stop him, much less pirates. Knowing that you can trust his intentions and his ability, what are you to think when you’re on the chopping block and the axe is on the way down? This is faith: knowing that God is all-powerful and completely loving, what are you to make of the situation where you are in the direst of emergencies, and he simply hasn’t shown up? There are two common responses, I think. The first is to shake your fist at the sky and curse him. The second is to meekly say something along the lines of, “Well, it must not be God’s will that I be delivered from this my hour of trial.” Neither response is faith. Faith is expecting him to show up at T-minus 00:00:00.000001.
I realize that raises questions, mostly of the “and what if you’re wrong?” variety. I’ll get to those, but I’m not finished unpacking Hebrews 11:1. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for. One thing you may notice when reading the Bible is that faith and hope are nearly always linked and indeed appear almost synonymous. Paul says in Romans 8:24-25 “Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” which is very reminiscent of what has been said of faith. It’s actually very difficult to separate the two concepts in my mind – you would as well have one without the other as you would place your life in someone’s hands without trusting him. For what it’s worth, hope contains desire for what has been promised, where faith is certainty that what has been promised will come to pass. Except hope contains certainty as well. It’s confusing. Thoughts?
Anyway. So. What if you trust God to save you at the eleventh hour – and he doesn’t? Abraham has faith in God to sacrifice Isaac, the knife goes up, the knife comes down, and Isaac gasps out his last breath. What now? “Show’s over, folks, thanks for coming out, my apologies, guess we were wrong”? That’s scary. That’s – man, that’s really friggin terrifying. Elijah v. the prophets of Baal – Elijah asks God to send fire from heaven to consume the offering on the altar – what if God doesn’t? I don’t recall this situation occurring in the Bible. Maybe it doesn’t occur in real life either. I mean, praying for someone to be healed (they die) occurs a lot. I don’t know why. But staking everything you have on God coming through – actually, I’ve never seen that. Easy to understand why. Staking everything on God coming through and then he doesn’t – what then? Maybe that doesn’t happen ever. But what if it does? What then? Job 13:15 “Though he slay me, I will hope in him; yet I will argue my ways to his face.” is, interestingly, one of the most defiant sentiments in the Bible – as close as it gets to Invictus (everyone’s read that bloody awful poem, ja?) It’s also the best answer I have. Though he slay me, I will hope in him. That’s faith. Maybe you can begin to see why Kierkegaard titled his work on faith Fear and Trembling.

Also, because I feel like it:
Out of the night that covers me
That in this concert hall still lingers
I thank whatever gods may be
For my indomitable fingers.

For though my fingers blistered and bled –
Up and down that Kreisler road,
My pizzicato, tinted red:
My violin’s bloody, but unbowed.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm digging the causal chain in the first paragraph and the slanginess-cum-archaism of "Well, it must not be God's will that I be delivered from this my hour of trial."

lol @ "done time in church"; Queso; "Unpack."; the dialogue in the Phidias story (← props for accessibility to an audience of our age range); and the concluding verse.

You inspired me to Wiki porcupine and Discobolus (← not a correction but an alternate spelling). Apparently: Old World and New World, and Myron, respectively.

"Except hope contains certainty as well. It's confusing. Thoughts?" < Mine: the notion that hope contains certainty jars with the definition of hope in my mind. Really?

David Joseph said...

Perhaps faith is a conviction on the part of the Holy Spirit, and hope is just something we do (probably because of the Holy Spirit). And this makes sense because the end of salvation is about relationship between us and God, no?

Anonymous said...

This is the best blog post I have ever read, anywhere. I laughed. I cried. I had a sudden and absolutely inexplicable urge to play Settlers of Catan. You, sir, just won Christmas. Also, Erik, stop being so smart.

Question for David: I will agree that the Holy Spirit can and does bring us to do the otherwise impossible. However, using your model, the question becomes, at what point can faith no longer be attributed to the human in question, but only to the Holy Spirit? I say this because there are, of course, many instances of faith in the Old Testament, which (IIRC) predate the presence of the Holy Spirit among humans, which started (again, IIRC) at Pentecost.

But then, can the Holy Spirit have faith? Presumably, it (It?) has enough certainty that it can no longer have faith. There's no indication that I know of that it is limited in any way, as Jesus was while on Earth. But then, Jesus was a psychic (Mark 2:8) and all-around badass. I'm no longer going there.

priestwarrior said...

Well then. Porcupine it is. See? The Bible IS infallible!

Erik, re: hope. The vernacular use of "to hope" is more-or-less synonymous with "to wish". This is completely distinct from the Christian usage of hope, which is very clearly stated to involve certainty. I'm not sure why there's such a wide divergence in use, but it's there.

David et Squirrel: faith and hope and the whole Christian life are only possible with the Holy Spirit, yes. Um, some very good questions raised here: given that the Holy Spirit is God, how could it have faith, which would seem to necessitate uncertainty, while God is certain?

I think this is at least one of the paradoxes of faith: it is absolute certainty in an absolutely uncertain situation. As with (I think) all such paradoxes, one must not fall into the trap of apparent faith by just being pigheaded in uncertainty - rather, I think you have to recognize the uncertainty or even impossibility in the situation and the subsume that recognition into faith: Though this is impossible, nevertheless I will believe it. Seriously, guys, read Fear and Trembling.

Another paradox here is the relationship between the indwelling God and the indwelt believer. A Christian has sacrificed his or her identity entirely to God, who in a very real sense has become their identity - yet I nor any other Christian can claim to "be God". We have surrendered our will to his, have been given his perfection, and seek to be more and more like him, even to the point of entering into a relationship with him like that which he enjoys in the Trinity (that always blows my mind) - yet we remain our non-God selves, who need faith.

Another paradox! If we've surrendered our wills to God and have been given his righteousness, why do we still fall short? This one, fortunately, is dealt with extensively in Romans (thanks, Paul): the truth, the reality which is truer than that which we perceive, is that we ARE righteous and surrendered to God, and slowly this our perception will be brought to coincide with reality. That sounds maybe a little gnostic, or perhaps just mystic. Christianity has mystic elements. It has all elements, or it would not be all-encompassing truth. Make sense?

I'm not going to get into the (non-germane-to-us) discussion on the activity of the non-Father figures of the Trinity in the Old Testament other than to say that the Bible does mention the Spirit of God coming on various people (for instance, Samson) for periods of time, and that one reading of the story in Genesis (most cryptic of books), in which God discusses with Abraham the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, has the three men as the members of the Trinity. It could also be God and the two angels who descend to Sodom to investigate and warn Lot. It's a very difficult subject.

Jesus read minds, according to the gospels. Jesus was the omniscient God born a human, according to the gospels. While total omniscience may or may not have been part of his human existence (I lean towards not), it seems rather likely that he'd be able to know what people were thinking, yes?

Incidentally, the man who pastored the church I used to go to before it disbanded (you remember Pastor Dick, non-Squirrel David) once made a point to me about referring to the Holy Spirit as "Him", since he is a person of the godhead, and not simply an abstracted part of God's character.

Glad you guys enjoyed the post. Curse the inadequacies of language to express theological paradoxes.

Anonymous said...

Sorrry I didn't respond yet but I am now soo:

I suppose I am more of the opinion that one does not necessarily need to have certainty in an abstract concept of the divine, since the uncertainty arises out of the question of his existence anyway. The issue of faith then is creating a paradox out of a nonsituation by centering one's convictions around an empty hypothesis. But that's just a dead end and no fun for religiodiscussional purposes, so...

Let's assume God exists, and faith is somehow necessary to the relationship of humans to him. Doesn't that immediately require that God never interact with humans? Because that would give those priveleged few not only an unfair advantage, but positively undermine their capability for faith (which we are defining as certainty in an uncertain situation). Yet the Bible contains quite a collection of just such occurrences. In Biblical times faith consisted more of whether or not to follow a god that probably existed (or at least something did). Now it is different.

So why should we have this blind faith in an ancient text with absolutely nothing concrete to base it upon? It would be considered foolish if one were to insist upon the existence of any other thing entirely lacking positive evidence, but God is an exception? Not to mention everything else that comes with the Christian religion in particular.

Basically I cannot see why exactly faith is considered a virtue, and then why I should apply this quality to the Judeo-Christian God.

Which you already knew, because I'm rehashing old arguments. But that's the essence of my point of contention with divinity.

But I like you and your blog post anyway. Because you reference Settlers and The Princess Bride and a poem that echoes in my brain and make it work, while the point lies entirely elsewhere. goodstuff of which you should def write more

(sorry this is ridiculously long)

priestwarrior said...

Morgana: now that it is exactly two months since you posted, I suppose I really should respond. I apologize for the execrable delay. (In fairness, I did discuss it with you at least a little. Still.)

Well, yes, if God does not exist, then all the deep paradoxical meaning I'm seeing in faith is illusory. And yes, it is very difficult to get from non-faith to faith. If Christianity is true, then it is impossible to make that jump without God's help.

As far as God giving people unfair advantages: he does that. He's never been particularly egalitarian. I think there's a distinction between justice and fairness. Of course, you can always get into, "If I was created with a propensity to murder, why does God judge me for it?" Which brings us to free will v. determinism, which has no easy answer. Mine is, "Both, technically, but don't use the determinism as an excuse for your actions." Paul's answer is, "Shut up; you're not God and therefore know nothing." Not my favorite Paulism, but it's about as good an answer as any other. As far as undermining one's capacity for faith, I never said (perhaps accidentally implied) that for faith to exist, God cannot reveal himself to us. Rather, faith comes after God reveals himself, in a moment where it looks like he's abandoned us. It would have been stupid for Damon to trust a total stranger, but he already knew Pythias and knew he could trust him.

And since faith depends on God having revealed himself, it's not blind.

Hope that answers your points reasonably well, and I'm glad you like my blog even if you dislike my philosophy.

Lisa said...

Hi Levi. This is a hundred years after you wrote this, but I'm responding anyway.

I'm not sure I agree completely with your description of faith. You make it sound like if you have any doubts at all then you don't have faith, and I don't think that's true (if this is a misinterpretation of your writing, ignore the rest of this paragraph). Humans aren't perfect. We doubt. I think doubting is actually very important, because it is through overcoming doubt that we come closer to God.

I also do not understand your comment about, "Well, it must not be God's will that I be delivered from this my hour of trial." Maybe it's because I'm Catholic. I don't see why it's a problem to think that for whatever reason God wants you to suffer. Why is God limited to wanting us to not have trials?

priestwarrior said...

It's cool, this site basically operates in bullet time.

Wait, does that make sense? I don't think that means what I think it means. I think stop-motion is a better analogy. Really, really jerky stop-motion. I change very quickly relative to my blog, basically.

But to answer your point: I'm not sure if I meant this at the time, but I'd say that faith operates most clearly in doubt. There's a certainty to faith, but it's not an emotional one - feeling certain of God is not faith. Rather, it's a struggle of holding yourself fixed relative to God and the world. If that makes sense. As for trials: sure, they happen, but not everything can be explained as God testing you - at least not in the over-pious hygienic way that kind of sentiment is usually expressed. I think that a lot of the time when the "God is testing me" line is used, it conveys an expectation that this will make sense in a few months or years, and I think that's unrealistic. I mean, yeah, it happens, but you can't expect it. We forget, we Nice American Churchgoers, that God sometimes makes No Sense. I mean, certainly God is perfect and he does only what is good, but there are things I think we will just never understand. Again, Job. I should do an entire blogpost on Job.