What matters in your faith?

This topic came to me from some recent reading. What is most important from a faith system?

ethics, salvation, eternal bliss, community, communion, spirituality, moral system, inner peace, certainty, questionings, truth, tradition, this world or other world

narrative, law, ritual, connection, separation/distinction

And it might be also added whether and how your beliefs meet or do not meet that most important pursuit.

I think you question needs more definition. Most important to us personally? Psychologically?

> 1

"What is most important from a faith system?"

First do no harm. Just like with physicians.

The question cannot be answered. There are very few things where most important is meaningful. One could possibly ask for the top ten or something, but not the top one.

As a for instance:

What is most important for human life: atmosphere, water, food, heat, space and movement? They are all needed to support life. Without any one of them, humans can not live.

So it is with faith.

The principles of the Unitarian Universalists Association

1.1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2.2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3.3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4.4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5.5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6.6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7.7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The notion in the linked article that they are guidelines may be misleading. It's been awhile since I dug into it, but I think that the official standing of the principles is that the individual congregations covenant to promote them. They are not binding on the congregants.

I don't believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person, for example, but so far I am more Unitarian Universalist than anything else (I'm open to being, potentially, something else, say liberal Quaker).

Robert

Good to see you again Mr. Durick.

> 5

It is a common witticism that Unitarian-Universalists believe in one god - at most.

That is certainly a step in the right direction.

Quakers seem nice, harmless people. I wonder what would constitute a liberal vs. a conservative Quaker? I'm guessing the former would be somewhat more outspoken on social issues and the conservative more closed-mouthed and tend toward introspection only?

A little nugget from Richard Rohr, from the Franciscan Catholic stable but usually pushing the boundaries:

Faith as Participation

Many scholars over the years have pointed out that what is usually translated in Paul's letters as "faith in Christ" would be more accurately translated as "the faith of Christ." It's more than a change of prepositions. It means we are all participating in the faith journey that Jesus has already walked...

Most people think having faith means "to believe in Jesus." But, "to share in the faith of Jesus" is a much richer concept. It is not so much an invitation as it is a cosmic declaration about the very shape of reality...

"Faith" is not an affirmation of a creed, an intellectual acceptance of God, or believing certain doctrines to be true or orthodox... We defined faith intellectually, so people came up with intellectual arguments against it and then said, "I don't believe in God..."

Both Jesus' and Paul's notion of faith is much better translated as foundational confidence or trust that God cares about what is happening right now... God refuses to be known intellectually. God can only be loved and known in the act of love; God can only be experienced in communion.

Would it be common for people to think that >5 Mr.Durick: is much easier to understand than >8 John5918:. I wouldn't know where to begin to try to make sense of the latter. I think I need a whole new dictionary.

>9 rrp:

"Faith" is not an affirmation of a creed, an intellectual acceptance of God, or believing certain doctrines to be true or orthodox... God refuses to be known intellectually. God can only be loved and known in the act of love; God can only be experienced in communion looks pretty straightforward to me. Although it may challenge certain types of Christian thinking, I'm wondering where the new dictionary is needed?

"Faith" is nothing more to untold millions of people than the "faith" that things WILL eventually, in the end, turn out the way they want them to turn out - that their individual and personal ultimate desires, wishes and hopes will be one day be satisfied to the fullest - IF they believe the right thing(s), think the right things, and/or do the right things.

That is pretty much as far as average religionists get.

The saints among us are pretty rare - on a percentage basis. And even then their "true" motivations can be suspect, by the naturally suspicious. lol.

>10 John5918:

The "new dictionary" was maybe shorthand for "I need a new language" to help me understand this stuff, by which I mean there is a lot of shared understanding in the way the language is used by the community that uses it that is opaque to those outside of that community. The Unitarian Universalist language is more, well universal.

For example, the third sentence of Rohr's piece is "It means we are all participating in the faith journey that Jesus has already walked." I don't know what a "faith journey" is and I don't understand how I am "participating" in it. I perhaps don't even understand "all". Does it mean all people or just "all we Catholics who thing like Rohr" (which excludes me.)

>12 rrp:

Seems to me Rohr is offering it to those who find it helpful.

>8 John5918: Both Jesus' and Paul's notion of faith is much better translated as foundational confidence or trust that God cares about what is happening right now... God refuses to be known intellectually. God can only be loved and known in the act of love; God can only be experienced in communion.

That seems like an unreasonable (pun intended) directive to ask of the faithful, don't you think? Surely to be successful, faith must be rational?

>13 John5918:

So his message is to the "in group", us mere plebs are undeserving of the message and should pay no attention?

JTF,

FWIW, that translation seems most accurate. At least it seems the most literal, which suits me the best.

Romans 3.22

"Righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe, for there is no distinction." Rather than "through faith in Jesus Christ"

Gal 2.16
"through the faith of Jesus Christ, and we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we have been justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of the law." Again rather than "through faith in Jesus Christ."

The NRSV, Oxford Annotated, offers "faith of Jesus Christ" as an alternative translation. I think it is to be preferred to "faith in Jesus Christ."

Jesus then becomes something of an avatar.

Belief in Jesus brings to the believer the justification which the faith of Jesus obtained.

The significance for me is that translation seems to emphasize the entire life of Jesus as the demonstration of the faith of Jesus.

Except that Paul elsewhere (1 Corinthians) states that he only preaches "Christ and him crucified." And Paul teaches little if any of the ministry of Jesus, as is given in the gospels.

So it may be, that for Paul, the faith of Christ Jesus is focused on his work on the cross. Does the faith of Christ Jesus equal his obedience unto the crucifixion? If that is reasonable reading of Paul, then I am not sure that "participating in the faith journey that Jesus has already walked" is what Paul has in mind.

Paul may mean "I have been crucified with Christ."

>15 rrp:

No, his message is to those who find it helpful.

>14 southernbooklady: Surely to be successful, faith must be rational?

Not sure what "successful" means in this context.

But it doesn't mean there is no rational component to faith, only that it is not intellect alone. I have often argued against the Catholic legalists on LT and elsewhere that faith is experiential, not just a set of intellectual assertions. I think Rohr puts it rather well.

>18 John5918:

The opposite of "intellectually" is not "irrationally." My relationship to my wife is not irrational, but I don't primarily know her "intellectually." She is no more a set of propositions to me than God is.

>19 timspalding: The opposite of "intellectually" is not "irrationally."

Fair enough. But the quote is "God refuses to be known intellectually. God can only be loved and known in the act of love".

Not "intellect alone," not intellect at all, apparently. That strikes me as a weird dichotomy to insist upon. Perhaps I don't fully understand what "intellect" is in this context but our ability to think, to reason, seems to me to be integral to being human, so there must be a place for it, a reason for it, if you will, in whatever relationship a person of faith has with God.

>17 John5918:

Then certainly isn't a universal message, as in a message to everyone. If it is, as you say, a message to those who find it helpful, to be able to find it helpful, one has to understand what the message is. Those who don't understand are excluded. That's the problem with a lot of this talk, even if you and he don't recognize it, it's exclusionary.

>20 southernbooklady:

Yeah, I wouldn't go with that formulation. But at the same time I wouldn't interpret it as some sort of anti-intellectual statement. We're talking about a liberal Catholic priest here, not some fundie. The "target" here isn't science, but people who think God is encapsulated in the pages of a catechism or a lecture. Anyway, that's my take.

Anyway, I find the whole "question" of faith and reason hopelessly involute. Offline, it's a tar-pit of ignorance and prejudice. Online, the tar is shit. As Diderot said, let us strangle the last internet atheist with the guts of the last internet fundie. (But not you, of course.)

>21 rrp:

In 1973 Professor Nicholas Lash, a progressive English Catholic theologian, noted in Change in Focus: A Study of Doctrinal Change and Continuity in relation to views such as that of Richard Rohr presented here that:

“It is fashionable nowadays sharply to contrast faith conceived as an intellectual assent to propositions with a view of faith as 'personal adhesion', patterned on the analogy of personal relationships between human beings. But however inadequate the former conception may be, it cannot simply be replaced by the latter. ‘Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas.’ (The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know). But he would be a foolish man who allowed his life to be so dictated by his heart that his head was quite unable to assent to any propositions concerning whom he loved and why.”

Which I think might set out in a more understandable way the point being advanced, as well as the problem with it.

>23 hf22:

I am not sure it's more understandable. 'Personal adhesion' sounds like an unpleasant medical condition. I get that this is supposed to be a more "emotional" way of approaching religion and it may help those who experience certain emotions in certain circumstances to interpret them. It doesn't help make sense, looking from the outside, of how some people react to those emotions to those who don't know what those emotions are supposed to feel like. I suppose it's like jazz, if you have to ask, you won't ever get it.

>24 rrp:

'Personal adhesion' sounds like an unpleasant medical condition.

Heh. "Patterned on the analogy of personal relationships between human beings is the idea.

I suppose it's like jazz, if you have to ask, you won't ever get it.

Well, the view a relationship with the divine is like a personal relationship, will help some extra people get the general idea.

But in cases like Richard Rohr the approach is not so much that, as just intentionally babble. Which is why for example at >8 John5918: it notes ""We defined faith intellectually, so people came up with intellectual arguments against it and then said, "I don't believe in God..."". Basically a defense mechanism which aims to prevents people from pointing out what you are selling makes no sense. Its incoherence becomes a virtue to the sympathetic, as it protects ideas which are important to their self-identification, and allows a sense of superiority over mere mortals who require beliefs to actually have some kind of internal coherence.

Patterned on the analogy of personal relationships between human beings is the idea. so "personal adhesion" is like being handcuffed together (or maybe super glued to the same piece of plastic during a construction project as happened to me once. I lost skin, painful.)

Do that doesn't help much as there are as many different types of personal relationships as there are personal relationships. And this one is clearly unique in some indecipherable way. None of what is being sold makes much sense. Maybe that's the point. Rohr is saying you can't make sense of it, so don't try. The trouble is some of can't seem to give up trying, because it makes no sense either way.

>26 rrp:

Maybe that's the point. Rohr is saying you can't make sense of it, so don't try.

Yes that is Rohr's approach.