Changing beliefs.
The past two years have been almost painfully unstable for me spiritually. I don't think I've ever really come close to not believing in God, but studying Christianity has, as I'd hoped, led me to review many of my beliefs.
So where am I now? I'm not sure I see God as loving or benevolent. I'm not sure I believe in the divinity of Christ, though his role remains the same in my eyes. I worship and pray to God, not Jesus. Almost definitely do not believe in the immaculate conception, and definitely don't believe it was required of the Messiah. I don't believe in apostolic succession (though I don't think I ever did). Still don't know about the whole "hell" thing, though not believing so much in a benevolent God is leading me more towards believing in hell.
As far as calling myself Presbyterian...meh. I wish the Presbyterian curch was more socially liberal and mission-oriented. I am not a Calvinist, though I would hesitate to call most modern Presbyterian churches Calvinist, anyway. Your roots say a lot about your development, but they don't fully dictate what you are in the present. Regularly attending a Disciples of Christ church has been really interesting. I don't like the lack of emphasis on communal confession, and I'm not sure I'm as crazy about communion as they are. Besides those things, though, I'm loving it. The problem is that the whole "communion" thing is, well, their thing. Something worth investigating, indeed.
Studying abroad led me to value parts of Christianity that I never had so much before. You probably know that I'm somewhat of a Tillichian, mostly because I like where he's led me. One of my favorite concepts of his has been the mythology of symbolism. Europe still has that. We don't. Statues, icons, architecture, myths, stories. They are all still there. They enrich and support the lives of the believers. It's too easy for us over the pond to de-value them by claiming that they support a delusion. I think that, maybe, the delusion is not altogether harmful. The contrary proof that attacks these delusions changes, but the delusion really hasn't. Which is truer?
Hardly a cohesive manifesto, but it's all I've got right now. Reason #98279344 I can't be a preacher: I'm loath to to plop something on the table and say, "This is what I believe, end of story." Those people have a valuable place in the sustenance and development of the Church, but I am certainly not one of them.
So where am I now? I'm not sure I see God as loving or benevolent. I'm not sure I believe in the divinity of Christ, though his role remains the same in my eyes. I worship and pray to God, not Jesus. Almost definitely do not believe in the immaculate conception, and definitely don't believe it was required of the Messiah. I don't believe in apostolic succession (though I don't think I ever did). Still don't know about the whole "hell" thing, though not believing so much in a benevolent God is leading me more towards believing in hell.
As far as calling myself Presbyterian...meh. I wish the Presbyterian curch was more socially liberal and mission-oriented. I am not a Calvinist, though I would hesitate to call most modern Presbyterian churches Calvinist, anyway. Your roots say a lot about your development, but they don't fully dictate what you are in the present. Regularly attending a Disciples of Christ church has been really interesting. I don't like the lack of emphasis on communal confession, and I'm not sure I'm as crazy about communion as they are. Besides those things, though, I'm loving it. The problem is that the whole "communion" thing is, well, their thing. Something worth investigating, indeed.
Studying abroad led me to value parts of Christianity that I never had so much before. You probably know that I'm somewhat of a Tillichian, mostly because I like where he's led me. One of my favorite concepts of his has been the mythology of symbolism. Europe still has that. We don't. Statues, icons, architecture, myths, stories. They are all still there. They enrich and support the lives of the believers. It's too easy for us over the pond to de-value them by claiming that they support a delusion. I think that, maybe, the delusion is not altogether harmful. The contrary proof that attacks these delusions changes, but the delusion really hasn't. Which is truer?
Hardly a cohesive manifesto, but it's all I've got right now. Reason #98279344 I can't be a preacher: I'm loath to to plop something on the table and say, "This is what I believe, end of story." Those people have a valuable place in the sustenance and development of the Church, but I am certainly not one of them.