Emotion vs. Christianity

This is a topic the director here has addressed a couple times and has helped me put more of a finger on one of my foundational frustrations with the form of Christianity I’m most familiar with.

How often do you say “I feel…” in a day? How often do you use it when referencing God’s presence (i.e. at church)? How often do you act on feelings (i.e being at peace about a decision)? The problem is that you are equating feelings with truth, as if feelings are something you can trust as an indicator to what is right, what is true, and what is Christian… or God speaking to you.

And the one thing I certainly have experienced in my life is that most of the feelings I have are not right, true, or Christian.

I’m sure some would respond by saying, “Oh, sure. Obviously there is a difference between bad feelings/impulses and good ones.” But, is it really that simple? Are they that easy to distinguish when they’re in your own head.

I would ask if you can really trust feelings. Should you equate Christianity with feelings? What about Christianity (biblically) is based on a feeling? Isn’t it about a belief based on evidence, what I would call faith (and thus based on logical confidence, as opposed to blind belief which is more about feelings and psychological needs… and definitely not what I would consider to be faith!).

Thus far this has been a bash on feelings (and a quick jab at “blind faith”), which it is not entirely. Certainly I think feelings are a good thing in the proper context. But as our director has been emphasizing, they have their place alongside rationale, community dialogue, experience and imagination. In fact, any of these 5 alone shouldn’t be trusted. They are not valid indicators of truth by themselves, as they are so often used.

So how should we respond to feelings? Recognize them, but with an open mind question them, think critically, reflect on your experience, and dialogue.

Just Another Day in Switzerland

We entered the Schaeffer Cup doubles ping pong tournament. Yes, costumes are a key part of a team's performance. Teams were randomly assigned (we're not together... boooo!) but our first game was ironically against each other. Micah's team is "Calvinus (The Elect)" and we come running out chanting "Calvin" carrying copies of The Intstitues and bottles of Calvinus beer. Hannah's team is called "Final Countdown" and they come running out to the band Europe's song, The Final Countdown.


This was us at a wine festival in Ollon last weekend. The path from winery to winery wound through the hillsides of vineyards. It was beautiful!

Go ahead, Liz. What are your fashion thougths on these pictures? :)

Emotion vs. Evil

Many people view the problem of evil as an inhibitor to the idea of a God, or a good God, at least. They see what they feel to be rampant evil in this world and think that no God could allow such events to occur and thereby decide that there must be no God. Or, if there is a God, he certainly does not care about or have any involvement in life on our planet.

Well, I don’t mean to be insensitive, but this response is an emotional reaction to what we all would likely define as evil things happening around us. Emotions certainly do influence our decisions and behavior, but they don’t define the world around us, or the existence of God. To use emotion as one’s indicator of God’s existence comes across to me as decision or mindset void of any logic or reason - irrational.

The fact of the matter is that they are using a system of good and evil to judge the very events they say justify a mindset that God doesn’t exist or care. But that begs a bigger question. Where do you get this idea of good and evil? If there is no God (or if there is but He’s not good) what are you using as your measure of evil? If there’s no God, maybe it’s something you’ve made up in your head… and then what you’re defining as evil is only evil to you. If there’s no God, maybe it’s just a cultural way of thinking… and then it’s still only evil to you in this contextual place and time. But realize, now, that we’re no longer dealing with the problem of evil but with a question of morality at large, what defines it and where it comes from.

The moral argument is a classic one for the existence of a God (Lewis’s Mere Christianity for example)… though it is as equally as often countered or reinterpreted based on one’s worldview (as I mentioned a few examples). In the long run, I think it works as a decent evidence for the existence of God (as part of a much larger collection for evidences of the existence of God), but the emotional response component only seems to further support it, counter to what it actually claims.

My bigger concern here is the use of emotion to define one’s world and beliefs. But I’ll stop here and process that idea a bit more in a later post.

Not just a ride at Disneyland!

I've only got a couple minutes to post right now before my tutoring session today... so I'll hit the important things.

1. Gottee update: Officially 4 months and growing!
2. We'll have been in Switzerland for 1 month as of this coming Tuesday.
3. Yesterday we saw... THE MATTERHORN!!!!

Vevey

This week we hitched to Aigle and took a train to Vevey, a small town on the north shore of Lake Geneva. It was the first beautiful day in about a week and a half. We really enjoyed some sunshine and warmer weather. (It had been previously in the 50's and 60's, overcast, and rainy) These are a few pictures sitting on the shore and walking through town.

1st, 16th, or 21st Century?

One of the hot topics for us here ("us" refering to everyone here at L'Abri) has been the interpretation of Paul's writings. We've had numerous formal lunch conversations and even this morning it was the focus of the lecture at our chapel service. Obviously, you can see it a bit in our thoughts regarding Hannah's post last week.

The thing that has been so eye opening to us is that most of our contemporary understanding of Paul comes from the interpretation of the reformers of the 16th century. They were looking at the Pauline letter through the eyes of their time especially in regards to the Catholic church. And that still shapes our understanding of Paul today. In other words, we often read much of the new testament for the 21st century through 16th century eyes.

What really needs to happen is that we (in our best effort) read Pual's letters in 1st century eyes. What was the state of Judaism in that time? What were the big issues that Paul was addressing (i.e. covenant, exile, promise, sacrifice, etc.)? What did that mean to the Jews and the early followers of Christ. Then we can ask how that affects us today.

I (Micah) have been studying world views and world religions a bit and I'm reading about Judaism. It has already been a tremendous help as I engage in these discussions and listen to the lectures. Hannah has been studying more of the specifics of what Paul wrote at that time... the latest being Ephesians and Timothy... in regards to topics like slaves, women, and homosexuality.