#118 Mother Teresa and Doubt

"Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear. The tongue moves [in prayer] but it does not speak"

-- Mother Teresa to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, September 1979

The above quote is from the recently released letters of Mother Teresa which are due to be published soon in what TIME magazine calls "an innocuously titled book". The book is called Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light and gives the world a first glimpse into what many are calling her "dark night of the soul" a la St. John of the Cross. This period, as the letters reveal, was characterized by no feeling of the presence of God whatsoever according to the TIME article.

Meanwhile, I often hear people claim just the opposite. These folks are sure they feel God, sure they know he is there, and often feel he leads them to make certain decisions after a time of prayerful consideration. They say that God is telling them to do something or that he is guiding them with a "still, small voice". Surely it is possible to feel God and some of those who claim to actually have. For those of us who are unsure, we would be wise to heed the admonitions of Ruth Tucker in God Talk: Cautions for Those Who Hear God's Voice.

In light of these two varieties of religious experience, one arguably no holier than the other, there is a question that presents itself to the rest of us standing at what I'm going to call a watershed of doubt. There are many watersheds of doubt in a human life and the question of feeling God is just one. The question is this: How can either "know" unless of course they "know" in which case they "know"? To clarify, the first "know" in my question is to claim to know something. The second "know" is to truly know something. The "third" know is a doubling up of the second sense; it is to "know" in the second sense that you "know" in the second sense. Now, go back and read the question again to see if it makes any more sense to you. If not, an interesting book to read, which I have not read, might be Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief which deals with the intersection of religious experience and the sense of knowing in the question above.

I add these multiple senses of knowing to the question to acknowledge the fact that I don't see any reason to rule out as impossible these second and third senses of knowing. Interestingly, the Greek word for knowledge is gnosis (γνώσις) from which the Gnostics got there name. The Gnostics believed strongly in the idea that the material world is inherently evil and that only through a special knowledge or "gnosis" can we hope to free our spirits to live in a the eternal state of disembodied perfection. An example of an ancient Gnostic text would be The Gospel of Judas where the "Christ of [Gnostic] faith" asks Judas to help him shed his mortal body by betraying him.

I've heard it argued before and I think there is merit to the argument that much of modern Christianity parallels ancient Gnosticism. We see disdain for the material world in a poor theology of resurrection and new creation and a lack of environmental concern. We see emphasis on a unique sort of knowledge in phrases like "God has laid it on my heart", "God called/is leading me to do this", and "God spoke to me". And we see this Platonic idea of the body as a prison from which the soul escapes in an unhealthy emphasis on the idea of a rapture as escape and accusations of peacemakers as anti-Christ candidates.

Whatever the case may be, I want to suggest that perhaps Mother Teresa longed for some sort of gnosis of feeling. To "know" in my third sense of the word is to feel and for this "Saint of the Gutters" to spend a whole life doing exactly what Jesus called all followers to do and still not feel is to confront a monumental watershed of doubt, perhaps larger than you or I will ever confront. But is it possible that to feel is not a concept of true Christianity? In other words, are we expecting something from God that he never promised to offer? To answer these questions would involve, at the very least, dealing with the Biblical idea of the Holy Spirit as teacher in John 14:26, Paul's intimate relationship with the Spirit as seen in Acts 20:23 and the believer's intimate relationship as seen in Romans 8:16. Just how these Johannine, Lukan, and Pauline concepts (wow, I guess the Spirit's interaction with man was a widespread idea in early Christianity!), relate to Mother Teresa's lack of feeling is what would interest me there.

What interests me now is the fact that when the revelations of her doubt were first reported, I was not surprised at all. After all, I am not sure that I have ever felt God in my life and yet I am not distressed. Perhaps you would counter that I am in a state where ignorance is bliss and I should be very distressed and do something quickly to change course. You might say that I am in an "artificially electric lit night of the soul" to twist the metaphor a bit. I admit that this could be the case and I'm open to suggestions. But I also want to argue that this lack of feeling has never discouraged me in such a devastating way as it did Teresa and others who are raised to believe that this is the only way to know God exists. Rather, any doubt that came along with a lack of feeling expressed itself in me in the form questioning God which has only led to further growth faith.

As C. Michael Patton points out over at the Parchment & Pen blog, the story of John the Baptist in Luke 7, provides a good example of Jesus' response to doubt and questioning. John the Baptist having heard of the deeds Jesus was doing throughout Judea sent his disciples to Jesus with a question: "Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?" Instead of responding by criticizing John's doubt or claiming that if John were truly of God he would be "in the know", Jesus points right back to the acts which caused John's questioning in the first place. He says, "Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them." If N.T. Wright is correct in assuming in The New Testament and The People of God that 2nd temple Jews still saw themselves as being in exile, John's disciples would have heard echoes of Isaiah in the words of Jesus and known that by answering in this way, he was answering in the affirmative. He was himself enacting within history the long awaited coming of Yahweh.

So what answer does Jesus give for John's doubt? Instead of appealing to a feeling of blind faith, inspiration, or secret knowledge, he points to concrete historical events that were occurring at the time. I think it's significant that John didn't question the miracles, but only their meaning. These were events that were occurring throughout Judea and even at the very time that John's disciples arrived according to verse 21. John wasn't relying on a feeling for belief. After all, the idea of "feeling" God's presence on an individual basis may have been altogether foreign to a 1st century Jewish mind. However, John who was most likely very familiar with the Isaianic passages about the end of exile, knew the signs of Yahweh's coming. Jesus knew John knew the signs of Yahweh's coming. Therefore he simply said, "Go and report to John the things which you have seen and heard".

So here I stand with John's predicament: I have no feeling of God and arguably no conception of what it means to feel God. I have, however, received reports similar to what John received about the things which were seen and heard, namely the gospels. I believe through no other sense than reason alone that these are historically valid documents attesting to actual events. These actual events point to the fact that God has not abandoned his creation. These events still answer, in our day as they did in John's, the question of Jesus and his relation to Yahweh. While a Mother Teresa longs to sing the phrase, "You ask me how I know he lives. He lives within my heart," she would do better to say along with me, "You ask me how I know he lives. He was seen and heard. He is risen."

After Jesus replied to John with reference to his actions, he said, "Blessed is he who does not take offense at me." Whatever else Jesus meant by this statement, far from taking offense, I have come to faith in God on account of the historical acts of the Jesus of history as compared to the feeling of the Christ of [Gnostic] Faith. That is possibly all Mother Teresa had to hold onto. Lacking a feeling, it is certainly all I and many others have and at the moment I am content.

#117 Quotes X

"For all the money, time, and effort we’ve spent on cultural relevance—and that includes culturally relevant worship—it seems we came through the last 15 years with a significant net loss in churchgoers, proliferation of megachurches and all."

-- Sally Morgenthaler, author of Worship Evangelism with a conclusion on the results of the church's modern foray into seeker sensitivity. I agree and would add that the church is experiencing a crisis of praxis. Since I don't belong to nor regularly attend church I don't have much room to talk. Nonetheless, here is my vision: A Model for Church. Thanks to Justin Taylor for pointing to the article and quote.

#116 Interesting Links XIV

The Politics of God from The NY Times - This is a great, lengthy article about the history of political theology. The author, Mark Lilla, is releasing what looks to be a book-of-the-year type book on Sept. 11 from which the article is adapted. The book is entitled The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West.

Last week a story which someday could prove to be an important chapter in our history books went almost entirely underreported by the mainstream media. While they were busy covering every Paris Hilton fart and chipped piece of foam on a space shuttle, Jose Padilla, an American citizen held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" was convicted of conspiracy to commit acts of terror. Thankfully, the Christian Science Monitor did a must-read series on the background behind the case and the implications of the outcome. You owe it to yourself to read it and consider what it means for the future of America. Here is the 3 part series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I picked up The NY Times in a Starbucks the other day and on the front cover was this article about a development organization that turned down $45 million in federal financing for food aid. I was shocked at first but then I realized the reason. Food aid from the largest charities is usually bought outside of the needy country from large corporations and brought in to feed the hungry. While this approach is necessary and helpful in emergency and disaster relief situations, it can often harm the development of the country as the sudden influx of supply decreases the price of the goods making it difficult for local farmers to make a living. There are good arguments for both sides and certainly a balance is needed. I for one am excited that the nonprofit organization in question, CARE, based here in Atlanta, is starting to provide this balance.

This may be the coolest link of all: Rockabye Baby Music! For those of you with kids, here is a company that has converted several popular bands music into lullaby music so you can put your kids to sleep and be a little less annoyed in the process. Click on the website for example and you will here their rendition of Radiohead's No Surprises. There are several other bands available such as Coldplay, The Beatles, Metallica, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, U2 and more.

And now for the blog roundup. There are a few blogs I've added to my reading list this week. Here is the recommended reading in no particular order:

Michael Awbrey
John Piper
Greg Boyd
Les Chatwin

#115 Semper Fi Jose

"Take good care of yourself. I'm going to war. Pray to God a lot for me. God willing, I'll return alive"

-- Jose Antonio Gutierrez, killed in Iraq on March 21st, 2003. He became the second US Marine killed in Iraq dying in service to the country that did not want him.

For the Department of Defense official release click here.

For the story of Jose click here.

I wanted to post the links to this story for those of you who had not heard about it yet as I hadn't until about 2 weeks ago. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that the two biggest talking heads in America, Lou Dobbs & Bill O'Reilly, are also two of the biggest xenophobes in America. They are also the leading ratings getters for their respective networks: CNN & FNC. So you want see the mainstream media reminding us of this amazing story anytime soon. Lou & Bill bring advertising dollars to these networks and as certifiably insane as presidential candidate Mike Gravel is, I quote him here: "Follow the money trail."

We are now in the planning stages of building a wall along the Mexican border. Actually the legislative branch has approved the wall but the executive branch has not yet gotten the ball rolling as of yet. What is curious is that one of the main arguments used for the building of the wall is for national security purposes with the fear of terrorism echoing in the back of our minds. However, if this is the case, why wasn't there a parallel bill passed with equal enthusiasm and funding to build a wall along the Canadian border?

Consider the situation in Canada as reported by CBS news on December 15th, 2004, nearly three long years after the 9/11 attacks, "Canada's security net is full of holes, with most border crossings guarded by a lone staffer and airport security so lax that missing security badges and uniforms recently turned up for sale on eBay."

If only we didn't need to be reminded but since we do: The push to build a wall along the Mexican border is not about securing our national borders against terrorist attack. It was about money and votes. Remember, "Follow the money trail." Meanwhile, as we begin to wrap the metaphorical condom that is this wall around our country to protect us from danger, we would do well to heed our parents advice: Just don't have sex! Sadly though, America has been promiscuously fucking around for years with different nations and peoples and does not want to stop. Well, you know what they say: condoms are 99% effective. Again the wisdom of our parents can be applied: Abstinence is 100% effective.

There is a lot more that can be said regarding illegal immigration and the wall but before we criticize let's at least remember guys like Jose, an American hero who has paid a higher price for this country than most of us. Let's remember to not be hypocritical and instead, put the same effort and passion into securing the Canadian border as we do the Mexican border. Maybe most important while probably not most practical of all, first get to know an illegal immigrant and go to him or her directly as a brother in Christ, if they be a brother in Christ, and point out to them their sin. If they refuse to listen, take two brothers/sisters with you. The last resort although often a necessary resort is to appeal to secular authorities. In short, I think Matthew 18 can apply in a larger, much more creative and efficacious way than we ever dreamed. Always for sake of the gospel.

Semper Fi Jose! I can't think of a better representative of the American Dream than you. You will receive the body you offered as a living sacrifice back at the resurrection and I hope to see you in the New Earth where there are no walls.

And since a picture is worth a thousand words:

#114 Guns & Conservatism

This post is in response to a commenter on the previous post. As I've mentioned before sometimes comments spark such great conversation that I have to turn the response into a post. Here is one such. Please read the previous post and comment from John where I have also posted this same response in the comments section.

Hey John,

I'm not exactly sure what your comment has to do with the post. My only guess is that you are referring to the picture of me and my wife in the top right. If that's the case, I think you would be surprised to learn we have a lot more in common than you would think based on a glance at one snapshot in my life.

My answer is that Jesus would own zero guns. I personally don't own any guns, and I never will. I am not against others having guns if they choose to, with important and necessary restrictions. I don't appeal to the constitution and its second amendment as some kind of holy canon but I think the 3 conservative points I highlight show that I am leery of attempts at change and especially man to make that change.

My answer to Jesus' second question as to why I would need to use guns is that I would respond confidently, "To shoot clay pigeons". These are otherwise known as "skeet". For those that don't know, a clay pigeon is a round disc used for target practice or in mine and my wife's particular case on the day the picture was taken... for fun. I would have no trouble telling Jesus I use a gun for fun to shoot flying clay discs.

No, I certainly don't get a thrill out of shooting sentient beings. I'm not sure if it was the orange vest or the camouflage that made you think I was hunting but... oh wait, I wasn't wearing any of that.

I love the psychoanalysis that you offered on hating my parents! :) All from a picture. If this isn't a perfect illustration of my 1st points of conservatism listed in the post, I don't know what is. You have jumped to a not-so-prudent assumption based on one glance at a picture and taken it extremely far, something a conservative fears, because of the realization that man is imperfect. In fact, though you may hate to hear me say this, you and George W. Bush have something in common. To paraphrase the 3rd conservative principle I posted, you both feel that power is a force for good so long as it falls into your hands. And you may be surprised to learn that I think that G-Dub represents none of the three conservative principles I espouse. In fact, he represents the exact opposite. He is Dr. Cocto in Demolition Man. He is the circus director who maintains a calm voice as the crowd is being trampled by an out of control elephant by saying, "Don't worry folks, it's all part of the show." He wants us to sit back and relax while he takes care of the show. With apologies to you and Mr. Bush, buts that's not how a representative democracy works.

I do believe children should be taught gun safety in the society we live in as the odds are high that they will encounter guns at some point in their life, if not at your house, at their friends house or somewhere along the way.

I do agree with you that a "culture of guns" is sick. Anyone who is "fan" of guns for their varying ability to kill and harm has mental issues. Furthermore, I think this culture exists and I know several people, having grown up in the southeastern US, who are this way. My goal, as I live and interact with them daily, is to persuade them to yours and my way of thinking.

As much as I fear people who wield guns, I fear a government that wields unrestricted power immeasurably more. If you're wondering why I feel this way, take a look at some good fiction that is out there that illustrates the point better than any other. I would recommend you read 1984 by George Orwell, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, or Fahrenheit 411 by Ray Bradbury. Or if you want to take it easy and watch a silly, not-so-deep but perhaps poignant movie, see Demolition Man. Those depictions of dystopia scare me far more than my redneck neighbors here in the south who, believe it or not, are good people who I know and love.

Those parents who give their children guns at the age of six... We can both agree they are fucking idiots.

In short, a conservative is careful with the decisions he makes because he has a healthy sense of doubt. For more on the concept of doubt and scepticism and it's history in philosophy, which I am currently interested in, read Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, Michel Montaigne, Michael Oakeshott, and one of the most influential books to me politically as of late, The Conservative Soul by Andrew Sullivan. He is a gay, AIDS infected, anti-war, Roman Catholic, British expatriate now living in Washington. In short, he is the opposite of everything you could ever imagine would be conservative. And yet, he reminds us what conservatism truly is, a doubt in one's own ability to manage another man.

#113 My Flavor of Conservatism

Stephen Bainbridge points out the 10 conservative principals laid out by Russel Kirk. I find myself not being completely comfortable with all of them and in disagreement with a couple but there are 3 that I think are spot on and represent well what I mean when I say I am a conservative. In fact, I think they represent the best of what conservatism has to offer.

1. Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away.

2. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

3. The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Interestingly enough, if you go to the link above and take the poll above about which of these 10 you find most important, these 3 happen to be the most important to other readers of Sullivan's blog. But I guess that would make sense considering the kind of conservatism that he espouses.

#112 Interesting Links XIII

A War We Just Might Win - There is actually good news in Iraq for a change! Now good news happens all the time from conservative media and bad news happens all the time from liberal media, so consider the source and see that most of the news is therefore worthless. But what is interesting about this is that here we have a NY times opinion piece that is highlighting good news in Iraq by two vocal critics of the war employed by the liberal think-tank Brookings Institution. Now we just need some bad news on Iraq from the Heritage Foundation and we will have some real responsible journalism from both sides.

I found two new blogs in the past week that I'm enjoying reading. One is Parchment & Pen which includes an all-star cast of Daniel B. Wallace, Ed Komoszewski, Ruth Tucker among others. The other is the companion blog to this one called Euangelion.

Just What the Founders Feared from The NY Times is opinion piece on the balance of power when it comes to war. Money quote: "The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an 'invitation to struggle' among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended."

Ebbinghaus - Now here is a very cool program for those of you trying to learn something that requires flashcards or is easier to learn with flashcards. I am in the process of trying to learn Greek and have already made my own, but this could be helpful for those of you in school or studying for professional exams.

How a Ron Paul Presidency Would Affect the US Dollar - Here is my shameless Ron Paul plug of the week. There's a lot I disagree about with Paul but I think he's the right man for this moment in history to get us back on course financially, internationally, and constitutionally. The article overstates the power of the executive branch of government to affect change but it's an interesting analysis nonetheless.