More thoughts on Questions, and Madeleine

I'm reading a book called 'and it was good', written by Madeleine L'Engle. I often find myself reading a good book and feeling as though it would be so good if people could read this... if others could be introduced to this incredible thought or idea. It's the way it goes, I guess... you have to find things for yourself. That said, this is an honest encouragement. If you're looking for something good, maybe haven't read a great book in a while, one that changes you and pushes you to think new thoughts, grows you, then find some of Madeleine's books. She writes novels as well as non-fiction stuff, and I'd suggest the non-fiction stuff. It really is a thought-based thing. She goes back into her journals and writes books about a lot of the deepest thoughts she has been carrying with her throughout her life.

The one I'm reading now is great... again, called 'and it was good.' I'd also really recommend 'A Circle of Quiet' and 'A Two Part Invention.'

One of the points she made in the last chapter I read (called 'Protecting God'..) has followed me to work today. To paraphrase, she asked, 'what is the point of reading books that agree with our current train of thought? In what way does it further us or better us as humans, as friends, as pursuers of God, to continually ingest that which presents those ideas which we already believe in?' I found that to be an interesting and revealing thought. It's important to be continually exposed to new perspectives that challenge your own. If you're pretty sure about something.. about an ideal or a belief, then it's probably your best bet to find somebody who believes the opposite and dig into their thoughts. The result is going to be either an adjustment in what was your position, or a refining of it. But regardless, it's a method of testing your grounds, and furthering your understanding.

It isn't the way we opperate, as humans. Take politics. Kar and I talk alot about our frustration with the concept of 'political parties'. Two sides (or three or four). The main goal (it seems at times), first and foremost, is to ensure that the world knows that, without exception, WE disagree with THEM. We'll tell you what we think the Federal budget should look like, but first, let us confirm and emphasize the fact that we DO NOT like the one Flaherty presented, and we think that he is running this country into the ground.

It's a lock-in. The decision is made, and we're not changing. Now... moving on to what we think is wrong with everything...

So then you have Liberal radio shows, and Conservative radio shows. The Liberals call their show, and the Conservatives call their show. Or, I suppose, the daring ones will cross-call, but the intention on both sides is far from open and mutually beneficial discussion.

That isn't constructive. It isn't growing, it isn't 'big-picture'. It's arrogant. Right? It is subscribing to the notion that 'we know, so much so that we have nothing more to learn about it..'

So how do I do that? What do I need to work on? I think I need to see discussions and media... books, movies, songs, etc., as opportunity for growth and improvement. I need to listen to the CBC, and try to figure out WHY the left thinks the way it does... WHY do they believe what they believe, and what do they see that I don't.. what can I learn? I strongly suspect they are not all wrong. Rather, I suspect their thoughts come as a result of their collective personality, their 'wiring', if you will.

WHAT do the different groups of people that make up our society have to say about any and all things? What is it in their situation that dictates their patterns of thought?

Above all, I go back to another Madeleine L'Engle quote, and it sums up my thinking:

"Infinite questions are often destroyed by finite answers..'

When we stop asking and start answering, which is to say... when the answers become the focus, and that to which we cling... what are we protecting? Ourselves? From what? Eternal damnation? Will God turn his back, cast us off, if he finds us getting too curious? Of course not. Are we protecting ourselves from 'falling away?' This is an oft discussed concept in the church community. Perhaps we've blurred the lines between that which is contrary to our current belief and that which is simply intrinsically negative. To be sure, one who involves themselves in those 'worldly' things, which can have no positive bearing on a human life, is headed for trouble. But one who involves themselves in the pursuit of truth is headed for a distinctly different end.

Are we protecting God? Are we afraid that a God who is different than the God we know now is simply a God we cannot fully know, and thus a God we cannot trust? Is it about that power? There is power in knowing. We're comfortable in a situation that we understand. We prefer to stand in the corner, back to the wall, everything out in front of us. We can see it all then, and we can evaluate everything for what it is. Then make our decision. But then, that isn't really God we're protecting, but only ourselves again. From that free-fall.. the vulnerability of admitting powerlessness.

That's what's so incredible about this whole thing to me. We CAN'T evaluate it. At least not from a position of knowledge. I think that's why the concept of EVANGELISM seems so weird to me sometimes. Because we come at it from a perspective of knowledge. We try to put ourselves in a position in which we're ready to answer all the hard questions. And yet, I know that I can't. I know that if somebody says, 'How do you KNOW. How do you KNOW that God is real?' I know that I can't effectively answer that. I know. But I know for me. And I cannot describe how you'll know for you.

I wonder, on days like today, if the original plan (I mean.. following the ACTUAL original plan, which was direct community with God..) was that all of us would be moving together towards that truth, and growing together into the versions of ourselves that we were intended to be. As opposed to the idea of some of us arriving, and then turning around to help those others who had not yet arrived. In C.S. Lewis' 'The Great Divorce' (another fantastically challenging book), he pushes this concept of continuous salvation... an existence in which we never 'arrive', but are always 'arriving.' And in a sense, that 'arriving' is to 'arrive.'

Anyway, as always, take this as my current train of thought, and do with it what you will.

And Sabrina, if you read this, and made it this far, can you 'invite' me to you and Ken's blog, cause every time I try to check it out, it says I'm not 'invited.' Unless, of course, that is intentional....

See some of you soon.

J