I saw a production of Samuel Beckett's play Waiting For Godot at Stratford once. It was both dumbfounding and thrilling. I sat enthralled, excited, quickened, eager, daunted, happy - in short I had a heightened and intensified version of the reaction I have to life in general. Enthusiastic bafflement. As great a piece of theatrical experience as it was, it was not a clear or straight-forward one. My excitement came from the fact that while I was absolutely convinced something brilliant and profoundly meaningful was going on, I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was. That, I think, sums up my religion, or at least my spirituality.
Without a religion, spirituality would be formless. It would amount to "what a pretty flower," or "I had such a nice time," - and what can I do with that? Religion provides bones, scaffolding, structure, stories, characters, values, words, themes, writings, a community and yes, God - a spirituality I can process in, engage in, grow in, toward. Dwell in. My religion is Christianity because it works for me. Had I been born in Iraq instead of Canada I'd probably be Muslim, or India, a Hindu.
The only reason to be anything, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, farmer, accountant, sailor or scientist, is that it suits you. The question is what sort of life do you want to live. If I choose life lived in the Christian community of Anglicanism, it is because it provides some subjective sense of benefit to my life. If billions of people subjectively say their religion adds something valuable to them, it is not for anyone else to say they are wrong, or stupid, or lying. You are, subjectively, the only authority on your own subjectivity.
If you absolutize that, however, and project it into places and onto people without that subjective, personal, shareable-but-not-enforceable, sense that you can't quite pin down what it is you mean, and try to browbeat others, or indoctrinate, or trick, or use sophistry to 'win' another person or a contest over some idea, then expect to be called out. The fundamentalist believes the bible is trying to answer scientific questions and its answers are right and should be taught in school. The atheist believes the bible is trying to answer scientific questions and its answers are wrong and religion should be done away with. It will be my belief that the bible is not trying to answer scientific questions, that it is a theological work. That is step one.
Step two is that religion only matters, only works, as religion. Translate it into science and you get nonsense. Translate it into philosophy and you get axioms. History and you get a movie. Politics and you get wars. Jesus walking on water, what it means and how we respond to it, is important only from inside the religion. How can it have any meaning or value for someone outside of it? It is in what it says to me as a Christian, not you as an atheist, that its importance lies.
Always I will remind myself Christianity is a religion. A direct, subtle, nuanced, strong, broad, valuable, old, tangible, honest, powerful religion. One that sees God as love, and people as compassionate and as treasures, the future as light and hope, and puts it all and so much more inside my heart and head and hands, places it in life and this world, in a way that only religion can. The Bible is not true, because I don't know what 'true' means. Christianity is not fact, because what are 'facts'? They are defined as "truly existing or happening" (Webster) and again, what does 'truly' mean? There may be more than one way to be true. We could argue that for a long time. But is Christianity good? Well, that depends on Christians, doesn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment