The Greatest of These is Love
"And so there remain Faith, Hope, Love-these three; and of these the greatest is Love." - 1 Corinthians 13:13 (WEY). And so sayeth the Bible: Love is greater than Faith. This scripture has come to mind in conversations I've had over these past few days with Peter (my friend from university, newly converted to Islam) and Ollia (my fellow placement student - also a Muslim). The reason it's sprung to mind - resurfaced might be a better way to put it, as with any scriptural texts that are embedded forever in my psyche - is Peter's leap of faith, a leap so huge (from my perspective) it calls to mind the skateboarding Homer, jumping the gorge in the Simpsons ("Gonna make it! Gonna Make it! Gonna make it? Aaaaaggggghhhh....") - you know the episode. Except Peter made it - with room to spare. Last year he refuted for example, the claim that Jesus even existed: this year he considers Jesus a great prophet (which you've got to exist to be). Those were his exact words actually, referring to the change of viewpoint on the Jesus thing: "that was the biggest leap of faith for me". So what happened between then and now: has he spent his time examining the proofs for and against Jesus existence? No, but then faith isn't like that: it's the antithesis of such scientific enquiry, isn't it? As a scholar once put it: "I don't believe in proofs for the existence of God; however I do believe in the existence of God". And there's the rub - where Peter has gone, it seems I cannot follow, even though I want to. It seems to be a very personal thing - a decision? - and suddenly you find yourself looking at the world in a very different way. No longer Godless or even godless. There is now a reason and an explanation for the way things are; you too have a place in this universe. Now who wouldn't want to believe that? Yet I can't see that there exists a logical path from disbelief, or even doubt, to belief. I think that path, as Peter would admit (I think), is a path of Faith.
That's what got me to thinking on the above verse: would a loving God deny access to one of his children, if he could not walk this path? And if love is more important than faith (as the above scripture says it is), surely God would reach out to such a one - the old analogy I made of it not being up to the lost child to find his parent? Again: if love is more important, surely God would not judge a faithless man adversely, if that man be good and loving in his life, and yet admit into his favour a cold, unloving priest for example, who has a strong "faith"? The bible itself says "Faith is not the possession of all people" - and it also says man is made "in his image", if the Bible be true, then I think it gives further support to my theory in this: God does not posses faith (he does not need to believe that he exists because he knows it), and if we are made in his image, why would we posses it?
And if the Bible is not true, and if there is no God, faith suddenly becomes - and slots disconcertingly easily into this position - the man made image of God in the seemingly empty sky - the heavens are silent, so there must be a good reason, so it must be for our good, so we will call this faith, which is the quality of accepting the way things are as being the way things should be, the quality of seeing something in the sky that is invisible, of seeing something in the past that does not appear now, of seeing something in the future that I may never see in my life. When one looks at it like this, and if it is this way, it seems to be the worst thing someone could do with his mind, to push everything aside and say "I understand". Surely one cannot push everything aside, one has to examine things in order to understand them? Yet this seems to be the closest analogy to the person having faith, who previously did not: I think of a mathematician who after a lot of work solves a hard equation, and feels very good for having got at the answer. To the man or woman of faith: are your questions really answered, or have you just skipped over the answer bit and gone straight to the good feeling? My argument is that this is empty, it's like the hungry man dreaming about eating a meal: he wakes up still hungry.
Anyways, why would God make such a weird and unnatural quality, one that fights against all reason - that causes our "God given" brain no end of distress - the most important quality of all, a prerequisite to loving him? I don't think that it can be this way. I think there is another reason - as yet unknown -, or no reason, to explain the silent heavens. For if "God is Love" than he would be with us, as promised in Revelation. And if he could not be, then he would explain why, in an obvious manner (as Carl Sagan suggested, writing a huge message on the moon perhaps) that would not involve some weird, unreasonable, artificial and godless quality of "faith" to perceive. This obvious manner wouldn't involve using a book (Bible or Koran or Book of Mormon etc) written by men, because it needs the above mentioned quality to perceive it as anything other than that.
This also involves the ability to pray to God, or to have any relationship with him. Apparently Jesus let Thomas put his hands in his wounds, and Thomas was (and continued) a faithful Christian. Well then, this is how obvious Jesus needs to be to men, who are all doubters, for them to serve God in Love. What does Peter feel when he prays, three or five times a day? Probably what I felt: and that is the answer. I felt I was close to God when I was praying, but was I close to God? The inability to distinguish between these two different things - as different as life is from death - that of feeling close to God and being close to God - casts doubt on the whole process in my view. I can feel close to Julia Roberts for example (as a "fan" - never having met her in person or even seen her in person): have all her films, know everything about her, even talk to her (some crazy fans do this sort of thing), in a sense, and this is the right word, worship her. Am I close to her, or put the right way round, is she close to me? She doesn't even know me! (I don't really worship Julia Roberts by the way. Scarlett has taken her place ;-)
It seems that anything that involves faith is suspect, for the above reasons. I am a good and loving man, or I try to be, and if God is good and loving - and there - he will know it.
That's what got me to thinking on the above verse: would a loving God deny access to one of his children, if he could not walk this path? And if love is more important than faith (as the above scripture says it is), surely God would reach out to such a one - the old analogy I made of it not being up to the lost child to find his parent? Again: if love is more important, surely God would not judge a faithless man adversely, if that man be good and loving in his life, and yet admit into his favour a cold, unloving priest for example, who has a strong "faith"? The bible itself says "Faith is not the possession of all people" - and it also says man is made "in his image", if the Bible be true, then I think it gives further support to my theory in this: God does not posses faith (he does not need to believe that he exists because he knows it), and if we are made in his image, why would we posses it?
And if the Bible is not true, and if there is no God, faith suddenly becomes - and slots disconcertingly easily into this position - the man made image of God in the seemingly empty sky - the heavens are silent, so there must be a good reason, so it must be for our good, so we will call this faith, which is the quality of accepting the way things are as being the way things should be, the quality of seeing something in the sky that is invisible, of seeing something in the past that does not appear now, of seeing something in the future that I may never see in my life. When one looks at it like this, and if it is this way, it seems to be the worst thing someone could do with his mind, to push everything aside and say "I understand". Surely one cannot push everything aside, one has to examine things in order to understand them? Yet this seems to be the closest analogy to the person having faith, who previously did not: I think of a mathematician who after a lot of work solves a hard equation, and feels very good for having got at the answer. To the man or woman of faith: are your questions really answered, or have you just skipped over the answer bit and gone straight to the good feeling? My argument is that this is empty, it's like the hungry man dreaming about eating a meal: he wakes up still hungry.
Anyways, why would God make such a weird and unnatural quality, one that fights against all reason - that causes our "God given" brain no end of distress - the most important quality of all, a prerequisite to loving him? I don't think that it can be this way. I think there is another reason - as yet unknown -, or no reason, to explain the silent heavens. For if "God is Love" than he would be with us, as promised in Revelation. And if he could not be, then he would explain why, in an obvious manner (as Carl Sagan suggested, writing a huge message on the moon perhaps) that would not involve some weird, unreasonable, artificial and godless quality of "faith" to perceive. This obvious manner wouldn't involve using a book (Bible or Koran or Book of Mormon etc) written by men, because it needs the above mentioned quality to perceive it as anything other than that.
This also involves the ability to pray to God, or to have any relationship with him. Apparently Jesus let Thomas put his hands in his wounds, and Thomas was (and continued) a faithful Christian. Well then, this is how obvious Jesus needs to be to men, who are all doubters, for them to serve God in Love. What does Peter feel when he prays, three or five times a day? Probably what I felt: and that is the answer. I felt I was close to God when I was praying, but was I close to God? The inability to distinguish between these two different things - as different as life is from death - that of feeling close to God and being close to God - casts doubt on the whole process in my view. I can feel close to Julia Roberts for example (as a "fan" - never having met her in person or even seen her in person): have all her films, know everything about her, even talk to her (some crazy fans do this sort of thing), in a sense, and this is the right word, worship her. Am I close to her, or put the right way round, is she close to me? She doesn't even know me! (I don't really worship Julia Roberts by the way. Scarlett has taken her place ;-)
It seems that anything that involves faith is suspect, for the above reasons. I am a good and loving man, or I try to be, and if God is good and loving - and there - he will know it.
posted by John Doran-Armstrong at 2:43 PM
2 Comments:
Fine, but I found the Julia Roberts example a little suspect.
Fine! We all have our own takes on these things.
Post a Comment
<< Home