There's a woman I hear regularly who preaches at the Fulton Street subway station in lower Manhattan. Her loud, Caribbean-accented voice thunders through the corridors as she warns harried commuters rushing to their jobs about the perils of Hell. "You must repent!" she insists.
What does it mean, to "repent"?
It's related to the Latin pensare, which means "to think." It's the same root from which we derive "pensive." One possible understanding of "repent," then, is "re-think."
Think. Thinking. Thinking again.
We hear a lot from the Christian world's louder voices about "repenting," but we hear very little about thinking. We hear much less about re-thinking.
We hear so little about it that somehow faith has become the antonym of thinking. Don't question, don't challenge, don't argue. Just believe. There are those within the Christian community who fear the human mind's critical and analytical capabilities -- surely the single gift above all others which sets mankind apart -- and regard them with suspicion.
Ironically, this tends to be the same group that places such emphasis on the literal authority of the Bible; don't think, you don't have to think, the Bible spells it all out for you. Yet with all their focus on scripture, they manage more often than not to miss what it says.
A search of the Gospel texts finds Jesus asking, "What do you think?" fourteen times. Jesus doesn't just tell us what we need to know and leave it at that; he wants to know what we think. He wants to engage us. He wants to challenge what it is we think we know; specifically, he wants to challenge what we think we know about God. Look at all the places in the Gospels where the apostles question Jesus. Does Jesus say, "How dare you question me, the Almighty Son of the Living God! Off with you!" No. He says, "What do you think?"
If only more Christians would ask, "What do you think?"
Think. Think again.
Repent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It is quite difficult to run mass movements based on individual thinking. The probabilities that people are going to decide you are wrong and do their own thing go up dramatically. Christ didn't have a very high conversion rate. In fact, there was a rather high apostacy rate even for the people who did join up. Good for him. I would like to see some more of the christian leadership following that line these days.
Jesus also came up with answers (and questions) that are directly counterintuitive. Which doesn't negate or support anything muchin the current debates, but should be noted.
"makes sense to me" is not one of the calling cards of revelation. Which we would all do well to remember!
Great post.
Yes, KR, good point, but I'd like to add, "Hey, that doesn't make sense!" is a completely responsible initial response to a lot of Scripture. And ultimately, what other standard do we have to apply aside from "that makes sense"?
Well, that's the problem posed by both the Old Testament and Jesus (I assume also Paul, but again, haven't really read him).
The OT could be viewed as God telling people a continuing set of things that make no sense to them--but that they need to follow, and To The Letter.
Jesus flat out clearly taught that we need to think in ways that don't make sense (those parables?? yarp). The Beatitudes make no sense.
I suppose really I have just made the agnostics' argument that this is why Christianity can't be trusted. Sigh.
But yes, makes sense is important. I think it is more important in the science/observable world part of living. I think the wisdom of the backwards/weird teachings can be evaluated by the observable effects--if everyone were more generous, what would that mean? When I am more generous in (x) instance, what results?
A strange mix of trusting anti-sensical revelation (the poor/weak/humble shall inherit the earth? come again?) and using sensible judgment (well, look at that, I feel better and so does that person, I guess that was right).
Problems if we expect immediate results on things, though, since spiritual steps seem to take longer the deeper/further you go.
(my 2c ;). )
Oh, now see, oddly, I think the Beatitudes make perfect sense. I agree that some things -- particularly the part about turning the other cheek, going two miles, and giving your coat and your tunic are what you termed counterintuitive, but they make sense to me, as well. I mean, I wouldn't expect the Pope to say of a Scriptural passage, "Well, it doesn't make sense...but there it is." If it doesn't make sense -- like a woman's headcovering -- we reject it pretty much on that basis. Not that, "it doesn't make sense to me," but that it doesn't make sense in light of mountains of other scriptural passages; rend your hearts, not your garments, your incense stinks in my nostrils, etc., all of these signs that point clearly to the idea that God is really not very interested at all in outward gestures. I think we all came to the conclusion that God just wants you to pray, no matter what you are or aren't wearing.
I will try to think of a passage that doesn't make sense to me that I'm struggling with. I'm sure there's several, just nothing is leaping to mind...probably because I'm not feeling super 100%+ at the moment. : (
: ( sorry you're feeling low : (
Yes, no, I know--the beatitudes make sense to me as well--but I'm pretty sure they didn't to his original audiences!
I'm just leery because this "makes sense" argument is so easy to turn into everyone-has-their-own-"Christianity." Your expansion to include "a mountain of oterh scriptural passages" is an important one.
lu. Take care.
While I'm not much for organized religion in general, including my own, one thing I always liked about Judaism was that it encouraged independent thought and open debate. Rabbis were scholars who spent lifetimes arguing ethics and the meanings of various Biblical passages. While there are plenty of religious scholars in other faiths, there clearly are some powerful "leaders" who don't want any dissent or independent thought. If there were less of them and more people like you, religion could solve many more problems.
Post a Comment