Faith in the University: Conclusions
Professor Anderson's book seemed so full of information, personal thoughts, and personal experiences. But at the end of it all, only a few sure things stood out to me:
The book concluded with examples of Anderson "crossing the line." The book ended with the importance of our personal beliefs. The book ended with intellectual humility, coupled with religious conviction.
In my life at the university, and in my life as a Christian, I continue to realize how little I know and truly understand. The more I study the Bible, the more I see the vast array of knowledge and revelations can be found in that book. But on the other hand, the more I study the Bible, the more I become convicted about the truths revealed in that amazing book. I am more convicted and convinced now of the truth of Jesus' teachings now than I was 4 years ago.
After wrestling with what Augustine meant by saying he was "confounded and converted," I have come to my own conclusion - a conclusion that I see played out in my own personal life. It's not that Christianity makes no sense - it makes a lot of sense in many ways - but the pleasant uncertainty comes from the acceptance that we will never fully know and understand the purposes and ways of God. Our finite minds cannot fathom all that God has done, and all that He has revealed through the Bible. And therefore we stand in awe of the mystery of God, and we are confused by it.
I think that this confusion does not mean that we can't claim that certain things are true. Just like Augustine defended his faith, I want to defend mine, because I believe in its rationality. I believe that we can know some things based on the revelation of God through the Bible. But, like Augustine, I recognize my limitations, and I recognize how much I don't understand.
So this is what I understood from Anderson's book: we should all come to literature and the university with humility and an understanding of our limitations as humans. But we should never abandon our convictions, and, as Christians, we should never forget the Christian spirituality that has (for some us) shaped our lives and hearts.
The book concluded with examples of Anderson "crossing the line." The book ended with the importance of our personal beliefs. The book ended with intellectual humility, coupled with religious conviction.
In my life at the university, and in my life as a Christian, I continue to realize how little I know and truly understand. The more I study the Bible, the more I see the vast array of knowledge and revelations can be found in that book. But on the other hand, the more I study the Bible, the more I become convicted about the truths revealed in that amazing book. I am more convicted and convinced now of the truth of Jesus' teachings now than I was 4 years ago.
After wrestling with what Augustine meant by saying he was "confounded and converted," I have come to my own conclusion - a conclusion that I see played out in my own personal life. It's not that Christianity makes no sense - it makes a lot of sense in many ways - but the pleasant uncertainty comes from the acceptance that we will never fully know and understand the purposes and ways of God. Our finite minds cannot fathom all that God has done, and all that He has revealed through the Bible. And therefore we stand in awe of the mystery of God, and we are confused by it.
I think that this confusion does not mean that we can't claim that certain things are true. Just like Augustine defended his faith, I want to defend mine, because I believe in its rationality. I believe that we can know some things based on the revelation of God through the Bible. But, like Augustine, I recognize my limitations, and I recognize how much I don't understand.
So this is what I understood from Anderson's book: we should all come to literature and the university with humility and an understanding of our limitations as humans. But we should never abandon our convictions, and, as Christians, we should never forget the Christian spirituality that has (for some us) shaped our lives and hearts.
posted by Christine at 10:05 PM
1 Comments:
Yes.
My point would be that we're very convinced of something, but it's not a "truth," it's an experience, a person, a mystery.
Therefore, we don't defend it as in arguing for it rationally against all comers. We tell our story. We move to narrative. Or we stay quiet.
The question, in another words, is the nature of what it is we believe--what kind of truth it is--and then the nature of the language we use to explore it.
Post a Comment
<< Home