Religion Definition

One of the things I advocate for is widening our use of the term religion, as we often use it in too narrow of a way (i.e. for only theistic perspectives).

Anyway, this is an interesting article looking at identifying science as a religion. I would agree with that assessment under certain circumstances.

Priorities

So often in so many churches, we fight about little things. This post by Dan Kimball really emphasizes that we need to live out our priorities. What do you think the priorities of the church should be?

I am not always convinced we should pay attention to eternal lives while neglecting current lives, as I alluded to in an earlier post. However, life in any form is more important than carpet... :)

Ambiguity and Faith

So I'm on a run of science-related posts. :) This is a fascinating discussion on stress and uncertainty leading to religiosity. It's quite relevant to this blog, as it empirically shows how ambiguity is not at all the enemy of faith. At least that's one of my interpretations...

God of Gaps

Now, this is a really cool post explaining how a lot of our religious traditions are based on filling in our gaps of understanding with theology, sometimes inaccurately. Then scientific discoveries come and help elucidate these gaps, which challenge a lot of people's faith at the time, but later (when we get used to those ideas), do not challenge our faith at all today.

Perhaps this could address some of my own questions and struggles about recent scientific discoveries. What are your thoughts and reactions?

Scientific Misunderstanding of Religion

I really like this blog post about how scientists misunderstand religious people. I particularly like and agree with the comment that the problems is that "scientists lack a spirit of dialogue." Now, many Christians do, too, but that can be particularly true and problematic in the scientific arena. In many ways, this is the case because the ultimate goal of objective findings is something that cannot be disputed. In other words, there's no dialogue. And based on the nature of this blog, I obviously think dialogue is really important. :)

Self Love

Loving oneself is controversial in Christianity. It is usually condemned in any form. As one of my friends and I have discussed several times, many traditions in Christianity seek denial of various loves and desires rather than embracing our deep-seated motivations. That's one of the reasons we like a lot of John Eldredge's work.

Anyway, this is a very interesting post about self-love based on Church Father extraordinaire Bernard of Clairvoux. I like the framing of "The love of self for God's sake" as the highest degree of love, even above "The love of God for God's sake." It really does take a particular level of maturity (psychologically and spirituality) to appreciate oneself, not to compensate for narcissistic injuries, but because we are truly filled with God's love for everyone, including ourselves.

I can definitely say I'm not there. I don't always love myself, and when I do, it's more to compensate for various injuries. Most people I encounter, personally and professionally, would be in the same area. What do you think? Do you think self love is appropriate when it is "for God's sake"? Where do you think you are in those degrees?

Future of Faith, Part 1

The first post as part of my stop on the The Future of Faith blogging tour!

I personally am excited to see attention given to more incarnational elements of spirituality and recognizing this is a legitimate way to engage and experience God. Cox beautifully describes this by saying "But it would be more accurate to think of it as the rediscovery of the sacred in the immanent, the spiritual within the secular. More people seem to recognize that it is our everyday world, not some other one, that, in the words of the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins, 'is charged with the grandeur of God'" (p. 2).

Cox also states that "people turn to religion more for support in their efforts to live in this world and make it better, and less to prepare for the next" (p. 2-3). Now this could be a controversial statement. He is making it not as a value judgment, but as an observation. Does this line up wiht what you've seen? And since this is a faith-based blog, do you think that's a good thing or not? I personally think it is valuable. We do so often ignore the present and bringing the Kingdom to Earth now...

Finally (for today), I think it's interesting how Cox differentiates the terms faith and belief. He states "faith is about deep-seated confidence... It is what theologian Paul Tillich (1886-1965) called 'ultimate concern,' a matter of what the Hebrews spoke of as the 'heart'" (p. 3). In contrast, he argues that "belief, on the other hand, is more like opinion" (p. 3).

I think it is important to separate those two terms, however I'm not sure I would completely agree with the definition of faith he gives. He describes it as "confidence," which indicates a lack of doubt or struggle. From the foundation of this blog, I am convinced that faith is always based on deep-seated confidence, but rather deep-seating conviction. I really like Tillich's definition, which focuses more on our concerns and priorities than being objectively and subjectives convinced of something.

Yes, these are subtle differences, but the implications are huge. Deep-seating confidence feeds into the positivist traditions of finding objective truth through scientific discovery and apologetics. On the other hand, deep-seated conviction is based on a more organic, human experience (in my opinion--you know where I land :) ). What say you to all of this? What do you think of the definitions? It's also interesting to see web definitions of faith.