different planets of belief

I want to describe an extended spiritual conversation with my friend, Sydney. We think so differently that one could suggest we come from different planets. But our attempts to communicate do not bring too much frustration to either of us. We seem to have a tolerance, bordering on love. The challenge of understanding causes us, perhaps, to treat each other like children. One must sometimes try saying things as simply as possible and in more ways than one to help a child understand. And some ideas may be too complex, but we love the little ones, considering them immature or “just learning.”

Yet, a known benefit of being childlike is the ability to creatively challenge concepts that adults tend to think are settled.

I started the written conversation with Sydney, saying I wanted to try to understand her point of view. I also wanted to know if she thought I was so wrong in my beliefs that, even though I think I’m a Christian, she would say I am quite lost, with no apparent hope of salvation.

We began from a foundation of caring that seems unshakable. We are both older adults who have known each other for many years. We have enjoyed doing things together, even knowing our spiritual foreignness. We can both be patient with the fact that the other is enigmatic.

During our extended conversation, we were able to refrain from belittling or using blatantly fallacious arguments. We could say intellectually offensive things, but within a constructive criticism framework.

I suggested that we could see how each of our beliefs might fall into one of three categories. I forget where I got this idea, but it is a good one. Group A includes beliefs critical to our faith. One is simply not a Christian if you don’t believe these. Conversely, one should not put any beliefs in Group A if a legitimate Christian is not required to believe them.

The next group (B) is for beliefs we consider important, and rooted in our faith, but not absolutely crucial. We can argue the pros and cons of these beliefs, especially if they inspire good or not-so-good actions. But we don’t accuse the other of entirely abandoning the faith regarding Group B beliefs.

Group C is for beliefs we hold because, for example, we simply like the idea, choose to believe it, perhaps with little or no evidence, but whether they are true or not doesn’t matter much.

I figured it would be easy to find out if Sydney thinks I’m lost:  our Group A beliefs would be different. On the other hand, I might be able to allay her fears about my salvation if we both agree that a particular belief of mine (perhaps mildly offensive) is in Group B.

Her first attempt was a long opus (her word), laying out practically all her beliefs. I responded by asking which of these for her belonged in Group A. She replied with another long opus, listing scripture to back up her beliefs and suggesting that I needed to do the same.

I had said that I only have one belief in Group A: I believe Jesus was a real person, documented sufficiently in the gospels, given authority by the Creator, and that following his teaching and commands was the key to salvation.

I asked Sydney to simply list her Group A beliefs and make sure the list only included crucial things. She refused to make such a list, saying that she would not compromise on her beliefs. Instead, she began asking me whether I believed things that (it was obvious) she thought belonged in Group A.

I realized that she found it impossible to “relegate” any of her beliefs to a status lower than essential. To put a belief in group B felt similar to doubting her faith.

She asked whether I believe in the virgin birth: Was Jesus born without Mary having been impregnated by a man? This turned out to be simply a test question for a more encompassing one: Do I believe that everything in the Bible should be taken as literally as possible?

In Sydney’s words, the Bible is “the true, inspired, inerrant, perfect Word of God.” She intimated that being certain about one’s beliefs was made easy—just believe what the Bible says. This is also why, for her, it all goes into Group A. She would be sinful to doubt any words God himself has written.

I said that such certainty was unwarranted for more than one reason. No words in any language hold, in themselves, unambiguous, unalterable meanings. Even an author who intends to say a certain thing with their words cannot guarantee that the reader will get that meaning, nor that only one legitimate meaning exists. Two minds with different experiences cannot see things the same way, no matter how much we may wish it.

All that is secondary to another big issue. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, and Jesus spoke primarily Aramaic. The Old Testament spans so many centuries that the Hebrew used was different for different books, in the same way that the English of Shakespeare differs from today’s. We have, today, in Modern English, several Bible translations to choose from. Is only one of them correct and unslanted?

Finally, we should not undervalue metaphor and symbolism. These techniques, along with storytelling, can provide very deep meaning which cannot so easily be provided with plain logical language. This is why Jesus taught in parables and stories. The gospels document that his disciples did not always understand what Jesus was trying to get across. He would sometimes lay it out for them in simpler terms. But he also pointed out that meanings would come to them as they experienced their lives. He promised to send them a comforter and advocate who would help them gain understanding in the future.

I could see why Sydney did not want to think about three categories of beliefs. Yet, if I suggested a different interpretation of anything in the Bible, she would realize that what she calls “literal” is actually someone’s interpretation. In Sydney’s case, she accepts the interpretations of pastors and writers whom she trusts as authoritative.

People who think language has a single, obvious interpretation are simply mistaken.

The conclusion is that, for Sydney, her particular belief set is absolutely critical. She thinks that God would be unhappy with her if any one of them were in doubt.

She would not consider that God could be disappointed in us for holding some incorrect beliefs and yet not condemn us. God, in loving all creation, must treat us like children, who have limited capability to understand his ways that rise far above human ways. The gospels give us great examples, as they document how Jesus treated his disciples. He was sometimes impatient with them, but would always help them get a better picture of what his teachings meant.

I said it was clear she thought I do not measure up as a Christian, since I believe so differently from her. I have one thing in Group A; she has practically everything in Group A. She protested that only God knows whether I will be condemned, but I said that if it were up to her, to the best of her understanding, I would not be among God’s elect.

Can some crossroads lead to dead ends?

We had come to an interesting crossroads. We are both old enough that our beliefs are pretty well set. Maybe I can make minor adjustments here and there, but I know what I believe and why, and I know what I’m uncertain and undecided about. Sydney will allow herself no uncertainty. Other points of view are of no value because they are just wrong. She is not interested in learning how someone from another planet might think. It isn’t simply that someone might try to get her to believe differently; it is almost as if other beliefs are like germs that might contaminate. The safest practice is not to go near them.

Pharisaical?

At one point, I suggested that being so rigid in her beliefs was pharisaical. She complained about this label and felt it was a bit of a low blow. As we Christians know, Jesus was not fond of the Pharisees. He detested their exclusivity and religious superiority. They had made a set of rules to live by that went further than the scriptures called for, but were intended to make sure they didn’t accidentally break a critical rule. They looked down their noses at ordinary people who were just trying to get by and could not afford to follow all the extra rules. Jesus particularly disliked the way Pharisees made a show of piety but would break their own rules in secret, out of the view of others.

I reminded Sydney what the gospels said about Jesus and the Pharisees, and that having all one’s beliefs in Group A seemed similar. If you really think everything must be believed in a certain way, with no wiggle room, then that implies you would spiritually look down on others who didn’t believe the way you did. This was precisely the complaint of Jesus against the Pharisees.

Is the crossroads in our discussion actually an impass? I have not yet brought up a subject that may give Sydney something further to think about. Can a person force themselves to be certain about a belief? Is forced certainty actually a pretend certainty? And isn’t that kind of certainty actually a lack of faith?

The Bible calls us to live by faith, which is a form of trust. I like to characterize their difference this way: We trust when we believe a person to authoritatively convey a true viewpoint on a subject or situation that we cannot personally verify. To have faith in a person is to further trust that they will have integrity: act in the future with the same character as they portray themselves in the present. To live by faith, a Christian cannot assume they perfectly understand the scripture or what, moment by moment, they may think the Spirit is telling them. They must be willing to live with some uncertainty, to be humble and open to learning new things.

conclusion

Our discussion is not over, and we continue to treat each other with respect and dignity. We can disagree without being uncomfortable in each other’s presence. I chalk this up to maturity. We have both lived successful lives and have nothing to prove to anyone. We must be of different personality types, which may be entertaining to explore.

However, I lament that this conversation shows me that my relationship with Sydney is stuck on a dead-end street. I have to accept that she has no interest in exploring ideas or thinking about alternative hypotheses. She has walled off her mind.

The reason I hoped we could agree that a lot of beliefs belong in Group B is that they would then be open for discussion. We could defend them by pointing to ramifications or rationally spurred actions, instead of merely saying the beliefs are required of us.

The only thing open for discussion with Sydney is her world and the people she respects who have painted it for her. One characteristic of an echo chamber is its emptiness. Things echo because nobody is there to muffle the sound as it reflects off bare walls.

One would expect loneliness and a certain amount of fear, caused ironically by the walls erected to protect. Can it be that the Spirit wants us to be vulnerable to each other by being open both emotionally and intellectually?

Still, I commend Sydney for discussing these important things. Instead of avoiding ideas that matter, we have dared to get into one of those often forbidden subjects, religion and politics. We don’t need to restrict ourselves to sports and the weather. And we demonstrate that people from different planets can still be true friends.

Mind in Heart is not about winning arguments but about playing with ideas.