foolishness
April 23, 2007
I have been reading Daniel Tammet’s blog critique of an interview of Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. Actually, I’ve been reading the comments to his blog.
Tammet is a functioning autistic savant in the UK who claims to be a Christian. The people who have written in response to his review appear very intelligent and throw around words like “logic,” “science,” “chain of reasoning” and “rationality.” They stir everyone who claims faith in anything into one deep, amalgamous cauldron of foolishness, making us out as followers of charismatic silliness – uncritical minds, incapable of systematic reason and study, and indifferent to research and analysis. One respondent spouted on with simple questions that would have all been answered by anyone who had actually read through the Bible a single time – even if they didn’t believe it’s message.
But you know, the reason the world can’t understand the gospel – the reason it seems foolishness[i], is because its core is relationship, not manageable information. God has used several relational similes in his attempts to give us an understanding of what the “him and us” thing is all about: Father and child, Mother and child, Husband and wife, Bridegroom and bride, Friend to friend, Master and servant.
And relationships are sticky things when it comes to explaining them to others. We got a random telephone call a number of years ago announcing that my cousin had recently married my second cousin. They still struggle with peoples’ opinions about that.
Who can explain the absolutely irrational emotional commitment a co-dependent has to an addict? Even when they have learned the “truth” of their situation and the fact that their pulling in closer – enmeshment – is part of the problem, they can’t let go without people around them coaching them to pull off the emotional suction cups.
Someone who’s been the victim in an abusive marriage can tell you they struggled with thinking they were the problem. Any onlooker could tell them they were confused. But for them, it doesn’t feel that way in the moment.
The forces at play in relationships are other-worldly. They are confusing. They are frequently irrational. They are passionate rather than academic. Or if they are academic, the relationship appears pretty turgid and boring.
If you tried to argue the gospel or faith on the basis of relationship, people would discount you as unwilling to debate. They DEMAND that people of faith discuss according to scientific principles. Do they discuss their relationships in that way?
We do in college psychology classes, and even, somewhat on Dr. Phil or Oprah. But its not an exclusively scientific discussion. And it never will be. There are emotions involved. We become protective against other people’s scrutiny. We believe our situation unique – an exception to the general principles of psychology.
If you look back at the stories of Adam and Job and Noah and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, Daniel and Hosea, the essence of the good news – the original, before-the-canon-was-complete gospel of knowing God –was all about relationship and not doctrinal data. And each of those relationships had very different appearances. How can you explain that to someone who’s a stranger to you, both?
[i] I Corinthians 2:14
