Now that I am employed in a corporate environment, I'm thinking about the differences between academia and applied professions. The old ivory tower argument springs to mind as I wonder if I am happier in an applied over a theoretical environment. Do I want to be at the cutting edge of innovation, sharpening my mind against those bidding and theorising in my field, with an endless time frame to explore these and my own musings? Or, do I want to be
in the field, breathing in the air of other people's expectations of professional me, do I want to take the reins in my hands and know what works and what is pragmatically impossible or irritating? These are interesting questions for me, and I consider whether there is an element of that same dichotomy in the walk of faith.
The thought occurred to me that perhaps you could become entirely theoretical in the way that you relate your faith to other people, even in your own relationship with faith. For me, I have been very experiential in the way that I developed my identity as a "Christian". There is always the introduction to faith which comes from your parents or from a friend who invites you to church or a small group, and their faith identity is where you begin your relationship with faith. Some people take ownership of what they were introduced to, and I think that means building arms and legs on the faith box that was displayed, but I also understand that some people carbon copy the faith that was handed to them and live in that identity - for days, for months, for years.
I have been guilty of looking haughtily at that identity, saying that that is an example of living someone else's life (or faith), but what I am beginning to add is that while it may be true to never have established a faith identity that is solely yours, it is also true to act in life based solely on the theories gathered in one's ivory tower of faith. I've used the phrase "relationship with faith" instead of "relationship
with God" intentionally because I'm talking about legalism. I think there is an inherent kind of legalism in the sense that beliefs about religion, God and how these impact behaviour are based on a person's theology theories. Whether you've tested them (the spirit behind the theory), seen how these are applied (other than "we
don't" or "we
do do that") is what I was interested in. I have met people who live in a constructed religion of this variety, and I would call this pure legalism, but I am beginning to see that legalism is like the weeds in my garden - no matter how many times I remove them, from the root, they keep coming back because it is a seed in the soil in which my plants are growing. Legalism's reproduction is happening in good soil (you and I) because it is fertile, and whatever is alive will try to grow in it.
My point is that "legalist" is not just something that you either are, or are not, but that it is something always waiting to grow - it
is. Behaviourally, we understand that people are creatures constantly looking for pattern and to fill in the blanks of their environment with something logical and reproducible. We humans, despite what the most laid back, free thinker will tell you, like order. Chaos is stressful and hard to navigate, especially when it is someone else's. It stands to reason then, that behaviours we accept and adhere to can be part of the De-stressing process that we undergo in order to get through our day. There are some things that people don't bother to consider but instead just obey because it isn't worth the energy you understand that it will cost you. I think going through traffic is a good example of this. Some people will just take the identical route home, not because it is the only way, but because they can't be bothered to drive through half the city just to save some time out of the traffic. If they take this route home everyday, then they don't have to be overly conscious of the route, it'll be like second nature and they can just relax in the relative sameness of their drive.
The word "relative" is important there though, because it takes us to the next part of my suggestion. If you assume that you have understood everything about your route to, or from work then you won't readily notice the subtle changes it experiences, and if you are really presumptuous you could end up crashing into some unexpected addition to your environment. Jumping out of the analogy, what I mean by this is that you could very suddenly become conscious of your environment, the same old Christianity or Judaism or Islam etc and find that it is the adherence to commands, it is the following of laws that are good and moral and socially adaptive, but that it doesn't mean anything to you.
This is not a new suggestion, that it is easy to be legalistic in one's faith, but what if I was saying that it is important to sift through even your revived, your organic faith, because legalism grows amongst the
fruit of the spirit present in your life? One of my goals this year is to be really present in the life I have
today. Did you ever go to church and suddenly wonder why people raise their hands or randomly utter in agreement with the speaker, or why you've said the same prayer every time you say grace since you were a child? I think it is so important to
really feel within your personal relationship with faith. In my opinion, religion is an agreement to follow certain rules and traditions, but spirituality is the pursuit of a higher power. For me, my spirituality comes from my background of Christianity, but I feel as though grasping tightly to that label will cultivate a crop of legalist weeds.
How does one avoid that? My theory is by constantly questioning the motives behind behavior - both mine and the people I appoint as my spiritual guides. I think asking whether something is showing the Love we talk about often within this blog, whether I am growing, whether I experience more personal gratification or more hunger for God, whether there is any heart in the action are important considerations. I really hope I don't sound trite, because it occurred to me sometime during last week that it was so much easier to recite the Christian values, to talk about trials and how "we overcome" and every other cliche than it is to say "I am in the throngs of emotional crisis, and I am performing, I am doing what I am supposed to, but I am absolutely broken on the inside". What's worse is that we as people of faith tend to respond to other people's admissions like this (rare though they may be) with statements about how it isn't true, or how it is going to be over soon.
Hope is important, and I understand the need to make sure that that message perpetuates in the midst of a person's despair, but it is almost like people of strong faith worry that their faith is somehow compromised by the admission of brokenness. What if you
never move until you can admit to being broken? What if you will never grow again until you see how much you need God, until you feel the depths of your own despair, acknowledge it, and THEN move into a different place? What if you could help a fellow person of faith by allowing them to be broken in your presence, by letting them relate a terrible position in life that they are experiencing, all the while taking their hand and saying "I see you hurting, I see your pain, and it is ugly, just like you say it is, but I am believing
with you for change. I don't know a damn thing about why this is happening and I can only imagine how frustrated you must be, but what do we believe? What has God demonstrated to us of His character so far? You have a friend, and we can alternate tears and prayers until we see change."
So, I guess what I'm saying is that it is much easier to talk about benevolence when it doesn't mean walking out of your comfort zone, but sometimes we need to climb down from our theoretical faith towers and hold someone in our arms, or weep openly ourselves. Sometimes we have to be the action, sometimes we have to touch the floor of the broken world we live in in order to be realistic, present parts of our environment.
