Monday, January 30, 2006

Theology & Thoughts

One thing I've noticed more and more as different aspects as we cover different aspects of theology at heresy is how pointless much of it is, and how often the church has split over issues that in many cases seem rather pointless to me. Some seem sensible such as the Reformation, where I can understand why those involved felt they need to split when the heads of the church decided to ignore the issues they raised and persecuted them for questioning the church's authority and traditions.
It is frustrating how human the church is and has been. We believe in a God who accepts all that call on his name, who loves all, a God who's message was to "love your neighbor as you love your self". Yet given the smallest opportunity and disagreement, so often the first reaction has been to throw out those who disagree and secondly attempt to eliminate those who disagree via what ever method was considered acceptable at the time be that by fire and the sword, social or economic means.
Looking at the early church the ideas they declared heretical were so often things that could not be proven either way. Who truly knows the nature of the Trinity, do you think it matters to God that one guy believes that Christ was God incarnate while another believes that Christ was both human and God having both natures, and another that Christ was simply a "side" or "aspect" of God? Why would God care as long as they all believe in him and attempt to follow Christ's teachings.

In many cases the we end up effectively arguing about what we think the "nature" of God should be, rationalising a God that comfortably fits with our world view. I see this when I look at open theism and free will which I consider to be the most accurate description of part of God's nature. While I consider them to be logical and self evident for a number of reasons, in part I agree with them because they fit with what I imagine God to be somewhat like, and thus fits with my image of a God who loves us for who and what we are not as an object or a toy. An image that is undoubtedly a product of my genes, my mind, my upbringing and my culture. While in all reality I suspect that God can not be truly understood by a living human and is complex beyond our wildest theories, dreams and nightmares.

What I'm trying to say I guess is that our views of and on God are influenced by many thing, and lacking clear and exact knowledge about the nature of God we choose unconsciously a view of God that we then try to fit everything else to or choose a view of the world that we then try to fit God to.

But being human means we doubt and doubt leads to Insecurity about our choice, which makes us try to convert/convince others to/of it, because if every one believes we must be right. We don't like doubt and thus attempt to stamp it out even though with out doubt what is faith? For faith is defined by doubt.

Complete and utter certainty is easier than faith for it requires no justification just action faith/trust on the other requires the possibility of alternatives.

Well I've no idea if that makes sense to any one else, I hope it does at least in part, and that it gets you to think a bit about the fact in the end only God matters not how we believed in him.

1 comment:

Jared said...

Just a brief thought. That is one of the conclusions that I have come to this year that a lot of our theology doesn't matter to God. If He really wanted us to know certain things then he'd have made it a lot clearer. However, I do think what we then do matters as well. If we sit around arguing and schisming all the time I think God would be a lot more displeased than if we actually went out and did something.