Friday, June 17, 2005
Sometimes...
...we need to think more before we post. This post from Allthings2all would indicate that I should have done that yesterday with this post. I cannot find a thing I disagree with in Catez' post, and I don't think she really disagrees with me, as much as she clarifies -- which means I did not communicate my thoughts as well as I had hoped.
One thing I should clarify immediately -- Catez says in her post
What do I mean when I say "out of where I am living right now?" I mean a couple of things. Catez says this
Secondly, because of who I am, the people I tend to interact with most (again, not implying anything about anyone out there in the blogoshphere) are much the same way, and therefore, I find myself so often engaged in intellectual pursuits but hungering for deeper understandings -- as Paul put it, "groanings too deep for words." I also find myself hungering for those around me to share my hunger.
I agree with Catez' point that intellect and faith do not have the duality that most people think they do. The divide itself is artifical and a result of sin. In the end, too much reliance on my intellect is too much reliance on myself, which is sin.
I guess in this sense I am not a part of modern evangelicalism -- which I find interesting, because I have used that word to describe myself for years, long before it came into its current vogue, and for those early years, it meant precisely the kind of person I am. I once heard CS Lewis described as the father of the evangelical movement and I cannot imagine Lewis being accused of "anti-itellectualism," but then words have a way of changing meaning, as bloggers are not always as clear as they would like to be. Thanks to Catez for helping clarify where I was unclear.
Oh yeah, and since we are discussing the artificial duality of intellect and conviction, I can't resist this:
One thing I should clarify immediately -- Catez says in her post
I do need to mention, as I'm not sure if John was referring to my post when he said "Too many people approach Christianity on a purely intellectual level", that I never advocated that.No, she did not, nor did I an in anyway mean to imply that she did advocate such. One need only read Catez' posts on her street ministry to know that she engages God with both her heart and her head. My post was born far more out of where I am living right now, than a specific intellectual engagement of the discussion.
What do I mean when I say "out of where I am living right now?" I mean a couple of things. Catez says this
One of the points underlying the discussion in my previous post was that too many people don't use their intellect. I know that from years of church experience and observation. And we all know that anti-intellectualism has been a flaw in modern evangelicalism. We have missed the opportunity to be effective and make a difference in many areas and disciplines because of this unfounded mistrust of people exercising their God-given intellectual capacities in a way that is in service to God.I cannot agree with that statement more, but it kind of reflects the opposite of my own life. I knew and studied far more about Jesus and Christianity than I had ever experienced for much of my life. It was only through a series of extreme life challenging circumstances that shook my intellectual understandings to the very core that I was able to get in touch with the spiritual side of my life with Christ. It was, and sometimes remains necessary for God to strip me of my intellectual safeguards -- to move me out of my comfort zone -- so that I begin to interact with Him, instead of what I think about Him.
Secondly, because of who I am, the people I tend to interact with most (again, not implying anything about anyone out there in the blogoshphere) are much the same way, and therefore, I find myself so often engaged in intellectual pursuits but hungering for deeper understandings -- as Paul put it, "groanings too deep for words." I also find myself hungering for those around me to share my hunger.
I agree with Catez' point that intellect and faith do not have the duality that most people think they do. The divide itself is artifical and a result of sin. In the end, too much reliance on my intellect is too much reliance on myself, which is sin.
I guess in this sense I am not a part of modern evangelicalism -- which I find interesting, because I have used that word to describe myself for years, long before it came into its current vogue, and for those early years, it meant precisely the kind of person I am. I once heard CS Lewis described as the father of the evangelical movement and I cannot imagine Lewis being accused of "anti-itellectualism," but then words have a way of changing meaning, as bloggers are not always as clear as they would like to be. Thanks to Catez for helping clarify where I was unclear.
Oh yeah, and since we are discussing the artificial duality of intellect and conviction, I can't resist this:
