This semester, I have been extraordinarily generous with our texts. I've read them with an open mind; I've given allowances here and there to accommodate their ideas; and I've pushed aside my own thoughts, making an active attempt to see things through the authors' eyes. I have done so since the beginning. See the comment I left on Goldman's first post:
For our purposes here (understanding what Yeats wanted to communicate), it does little good to view this poem through our [Southern Baptist] evangelical lens. We should try and see the world from his eyes, if only for a second. - (25 January, 2012)Also see what I wrote concerning Martin Heidegger back in February:
Hopefully, I have given the bloggers some biographical perspective that allows them to see the work and philosophy of Heidegger in another view, other than our 21st century one, which often ignores historical context, and our evangelical Christian one, which often fails to wrestle with philosophers on their own terms.Read my other blog posts and my other comments, where I have brought outside sources to shed greater light on our subjects; where I have been extraordinarily generous in my reading; and where none can accuse me of not having wrestled with the texts.
The professors know this as well. After reading my "Explication of Heidegger's 'Fundamental Question,'" not even Dr. Talmage can say I didn't wrestle with the man on his own terms, which I clearly defined and understood. I am an intellectual heavyweight. But now my generosity is spent.
Today, we came full circle when I asked the question, "What is faith?" Endo, Bonhoeffer and Frankl are taking us back to where we started: Heidegger's fundamental question: "Why are there essents rather than nothing?" In my paper, I wrote,
When one truly asks the question, it strips away all his securities and formerly held presumptions, and it makes him vulnerable to whatever he finds, whether he finds a real or pretended foundation for being or none at all (Spell 1).And also,
To engage in metaphysics, one does not adhere to a set of fashionable "truths." Instead, he takes a leap of [uncertainty] without knowing where he will land. Though he may fall on solid ground, he may also fall into the abyss, but that is the risk all metaphysicians are willing to take (Spell 2).A metaphysician is one who questions. To question is to will to know, and to know is to be able to learn; therefore, to question is to be willing to learn what knowledge he does not possess. Someone who is unwilling to learn and believes he already "knows" the answers of life cannot be a metaphysician, because,
A faith that does not perpetually expose itself to the possibility of unfaith is no faith but merely a convenience: the believer simply makes up his mind to adhere to the traditional doctrine (Heidegger 7).Martin Heidegger's “faith” is synonymous to “doubt,” and I utterly reject it. His opinions amount to nothing. They lead only to a dark, knowledgeless abyss— it's dead empty! Why question? I will not expose myself to the possibility of unfaith, because I've made my mind to adhere to the traditional Christian doctrine, which is this:
Now faith [is] the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)So what if it's convenient? I've simply decided to follow Jesus. Undoubtedly, someone reading Bonhoeffer will say, "How can you have faith in Jesus, when faith means you're uncertain of where he leads you?" But I am completely certain where he leads me, because he makes it absolutely clear:
If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you (John 15:20).
Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (II Timothy 3:12).And again, "How can you be certain of that?" Because I've made up my mind to believe the traditional doctrine (see above). I have the greater faith: the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. The people of old received their commendation for their faith. Now we receive it for our skepticism. Preposterous! I am content with being a simple Christian, like the ones in Abernathy's 202 class. With them, therefore, I stand.
I have stared into the abyss and, weighing the dangers, have walked away from it. To the abyss with you and your miserable, corrosive “faith,” Martin Heidegger! You wolf! You Anti-Christ! You dim-witted, mini-Hitler! Begone with you and your whore, Reason! I'll have no part with either of you.
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. (Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569)
I don't really think I need to expound upon what you've actually wrote on, because you have written in simple terms and you are dead on like a laser-I commend you for it. I merely comment a.)to thank you for an excellent blog post & b.)to warn you that you shouldn't necessarily claim yourself a member of Abernathy's 202 class, because there's more to it than being a "simple-minded Christian." When it comes to faith, I would argue that there is a spectrum to consider: On one end you have those who question everything (Heidegger), on the other you have those that can't define their faith and believe things without any further consideration (Last Man), and there are those who can actually define where they stand and take full charge of the beliefs that God has given you. I'm not saying that the 202s are all stuck any specific point on the spectrum with no margin of error: I'm simply reminding you not to associate yourself, a true man of faith, with those that seem like they share your sense of Truth all because they don't act like Heidegger, because they may be nothing more than simple fools.
ReplyDelete