So matters of faith have always been a sticky issue for me - because of a Catholic upbringing, my default has always been belief in the existence of a Christian God. But growing up in India with its ancient, evocative and powerful epics and with Hindu/Muslim friends who live by the faith of different books has made me wonder about the wisdom of professing that only "believers" of a Christian god would be saved. Add the usual existential angst of college years and the mandatory Ayn Rand and Nietzche reads, you can imagine why I opted for the more physical horrors of the NCC.
Consider this debate between a preacher and a public policy expert on the spiritual legitimacy of gay marriage - this was subsequent to a Newsweek article by Lisa Miller where she argues that with the coming of Jesus (and therefore based on the New Testament) the Bible does not exclude any particular group of people based on criteria such as race, region, church or... sexuality. Not only do I appreciate the content of this discussion between these experts but I also have great regard for tone and respect inherent in the discussion. I will leave aside the actual arguments to your interest, but look at how the counter-arguments start:
"Thank you for this. We are actually engaging one another. By my lights, a rarity between our sorts. Please forgive me for being surprised. Our conversation may be more important than I first guessed. And I'm going to be emboldened to say some hard things in response"
"I think we've had a very good exchange. Thanks for being open with me, and letting me understand your thinking. I hope I have adequately communicated why I take the position I do on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage."
Whenever I've tried to start a reasonable debate with the evangelical Xians that I know (sometimes even with my brother, cousins, aunts etc), I get the v"Revelations" and half the scary verses of the Old Testament thrown at me with such vigor and passion that it becomes impossible to be objective, especially with the usual condescending scorn comes along with this "Ha, he argues with his mind and not with his spiritual soul".
In the face of such biased "faith", what does one conclude? That God fearfully and wonderfully made the brilliant mechanism of the human brain so that we could dump it cold storage when we go to Church or when we read the Bible? That we adhere to what we like about the Holy Book and listen to the preachers we are comfortable with, rather than search ourselves for meaning and relevance? Here's to hoping to more reasonable, vitriolic, more inclusive, less bigoted discussions and debate on "Faith" in the year to come.
So here I am, after a while, faith in a year where matters of religious faith have manifested themselves in forums ranging from the US Presidential elections to the Mumbai attacks. As a X'ian, I have serious rants about the institution of the Catholic Church - its' beliefs about saints, its stance on abortion and stem cell research...there's quite a few "official" opinions that I strongly resent. At the same time, I think the Church has been a force of good for humanity, the causes of poverty alleviation, literacy, health-care and political change. There are many strong arguments for and against the Church and its behavior - but I have also come to realize that such issues and differences exist among any body of people on probably any topic under the sun... and the only way to address such issues are to engage and talk about them, rather than ignore them them to a point of explosive isolation.
Consider this debate between a preacher and a public policy expert on the spiritual legitimacy of gay marriage - this was subsequent to a Newsweek article by Lisa Miller where she argues that with the coming of Jesus (and therefore based on the New Testament) the Bible does not exclude any particular group of people based on criteria such as race, region, church or... sexuality. Not only do I appreciate the content of this discussion between these experts but I also have great regard for tone and respect inherent in the discussion. I will leave aside the actual arguments to your interest, but look at how the counter-arguments start:
"Thank you for this. We are actually engaging one another. By my lights, a rarity between our sorts. Please forgive me for being surprised. Our conversation may be more important than I first guessed. And I'm going to be emboldened to say some hard things in response"
"I think we've had a very good exchange. Thanks for being open with me, and letting me understand your thinking. I hope I have adequately communicated why I take the position I do on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage."
Whenever I've tried to start a reasonable debate with the evangelical Xians that I know (sometimes even with my brother, cousins, aunts etc), I get the v"Revelations" and half the scary verses of the Old Testament thrown at me with such vigor and passion that it becomes impossible to be objective, especially with the usual condescending scorn comes along with this "Ha, he argues with his mind and not with his spiritual soul".
In the face of such biased "faith", what does one conclude? That God fearfully and wonderfully made the brilliant mechanism of the human brain so that we could dump it cold storage when we go to Church or when we read the Bible? That we adhere to what we like about the Holy Book and listen to the preachers we are comfortable with, rather than search ourselves for meaning and relevance? Here's to hoping to more reasonable, vitriolic, more inclusive, less bigoted discussions and debate on "Faith" in the year to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment