Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsIndividual Entry: Allegories
« Fall TV Season 2005, the verdict |
Main
| Challenge vs. Adapt »
If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr.
No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).If you want to know more about me, click here.
October 13, 2005
Allegories , Faith : Allegories
One problem I have when sharing my faith with other people is that the words I would like to be able to use often mean different things to the people I talk to. I say I am a "Christian", and that brings into people's mind some image of intolerance or irrelevance. I say "prayer" and it conjures images or boredom or futility. People's pre-conceived notions about faith speak louder and faster in their minds than I can ever respond.
I am starting to come to the conclusion that the best way to communicate my own experience is through allegory - stories that express what I experience via metaphor and analogy. Allegories are by nature imperfect (one should not read deep doctrine into them); but if they can help people understand that my experience may be a bit different from what they expect, it might be worth it.
I am therefore initiating a new category on my blog for me to post Christian allegories. Here's the first one:
----
Imagine the ultimate gymnastics tournament – bigger and more prestigious than the Olympics. In fact, to qualify to get into the tournament, you have to score a perfect "10", not on just one apparatus; but on every apparatus. Those are the standards and they are non-negotiable. There is however a loophole. Once a team qualifies, they are permitted to send a substitute gymnast in place of any qualifying team member.
Now the organizers of the tournament sent their own team to qualify, and they passed – they got a perfect 10 on all apparatus and thus qualified to attend the tournament. Then the team set up a gymnastics school to train people how to become great gymnasts. The deal with the school was if you join the school and allow them to train you, they would send you as a substitute to the tournament even if you couldn't actually score a perfect 10 on any apparatus; but you had to be willing to let them train you to be as good as you could be.
In the school, the coach (who had qualified for the tournament) would work with the students individually. Some days he would work with one student on their dismount, and another student on their grip and another student on tumbling. Each student however received personal instruction each day. The coach also encouraged all of the student to support each other – cheering each other on as they practiced, talking to each other about what they were learning; but always reminding them that he was the coach, not them.
There were some student the coach put in charge of organizing things – making sure the all of the equipment was ready, making sure people got to their sessions with the coach when they were needed; but while they had these added responsibilities they were still students like everyone else – they weren't even the best gymnasts; but the coach trusted them to create an environment in which the others could learn.
Now people reacted to all this in a number of ways.
Some people just didn't care, and they ignored the tournament entirely.
Some people tried to qualify for the tournament on their own, and while a few people managed to score a 10 in one apparatus, none scored 10's on every apparatus.
Some people signed up at the school so they could get into the tournament; but then ignored the coach and sat on the bench all day. Many of these even got worse at gymnastics because they weren't exercising.
Some people signed up at the school but always argued with the coach, telling the coach he was doing thing wrong (even thought the coach had qualified for the tournament and these people had not). Some of these even started to pretend to coach other students and often left them very confused and poorly trained.
Some people worked eagerly with the coach for a while, then when they reached a difficult part of the training gave up and went to join those sitting on the benches.
Some people eagerly accepted their training; but as they learned they began to pick on other students who hadn't learned the same things. One student might have learned from the coach to get better as tumbling; but then they picked on the students with whom the coach had been working on balance and who therefore had not been training in tumbling yet.
Finally there were those who joined the school and just focused on doing what the coach said. They encouraged the other students; but never tried to coach them or pick on them for their weaknesses. They were the ones who got the best scores at the tournament because all of their energy was focused on what the coach was teaching them.
Posted by Steven at October 13, 2005 08:28 PM
Comments
To me, people of faith are a curious breed. I understand completely the need for faith, and the desire to use it and spread it, but I don't understand the need for rigidity. I don't understand the knee-jerk application of metrics that weren't intended.
For example, I had a discussion with someone about the various translations into English of the Bible. The other insisted that the translations were divinely guided and got offended when I asked why an infallible, all-knowing, all-seeing guide would then ever require more than one translation. I expected the answer that language nuances had changed over time and that the newer translation had rendered things in the new nuances. What I got was 'it's simply better because it is' and that I was awful for even questioning.
I think you choice of allegory is one way around the stone wall such individuals build up. But the world would be a better place if such walls never existed.
Posted by: Roland at October 19, 2005 08:38 AM
Regarding rigidity: There is some absolute, objective truth out there which disserves our rigid adherence. I just prefer to remain humble about my own ability to perceive that truth perfectly. There are things that I have learned which I am fairly certain of; but I am always open to the possibility that I got something wrong. Faith is not the refusal to ask questions, it is the willingness to take a stand with what limited answers you have.
Posted by: Steven at October 19, 2005 09:00 AM
"There is some absolute, objective truth out there which deserves our rigid adherence."
Why?
Oh, I suppose belief in God. But most anything else we mention carries the possibility of being wrong (and I'm going to take the Jewish approach and include Jesus in this). Being humble about it is both a marvelous and correct approach. Taking a stand with limited answers seems both unnecessary and prone to getting one into trouble.
I guess I'm agreeing with you but my grey area is a lot bigger?
Posted by: Roland at October 19, 2005 03:05 PM
Roland remarks: "Taking a stand with limited answers seems both unnecessary and prone to getting one into trouble"
Point well taken - There is another approach to life which is that you do not act on anything which has not been proven to you to be a fact. If you accept that philosophy, do you not eat without proving the food is safe? Or do you eat anything because it has not been proven to be dangerous? Do you not try new restaurants because there is no proof that they will be good? Do you not vote because you can't be sure what a candidate will do once in office?
I claim we all always act on limited information, and take risks that we will "get into trouble" when we do; but accept that as part of normal life. Because the risks of being wrong about the nature of faith and religion are potentially high (some religions have rather dire predictions about what happens if you are wrong), I do think it is in everyone's best interest to invest energy in trying to figure out what the objective truth is with regard to God, etc.
Posted by: Steven at October 19, 2005 03:35 PM
There is a distinction to be made between working with limited information and rigid adherence. It is very reasonable to be "humble" about the uncertainties and work with what is known. It is not reasonable to reach the point of selecting a subset, declaring the information sufficient and then taking an immutable stance.
In that last path lies the intolerance of faith - the very thing that I am trying to avoid.
Posted by: Roland at October 20, 2005 10:25 AM
Roland, I agree - "declaring the information sufficient and then taking an immutable stance" is problematic. Regardless of one's beliefs, it is important to keep asking question, to keep seeking the truth, to continue to be open to information which might change your understanding of things. That was the point of my original statement "Faith is not the refusal to ask questions, it is the willingness to take a stand with what limited answers you have".
Posted by: Steven at October 20, 2005 11:24 AM
I hate to interrupt in the middle of an argument, but what's the difference between taking a stand based on faith and taking a stand based on ethics or on your conscience? In either case, there's no way to be completely certain that you're right. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't take stands against world hunger/the Patriot act/whatever issue is in the headlines today. The key is to take a stand while still listening to the other side.
I agree that faith can lead to rigidity, but I've met rigid liberal atheists as well. A lack of faith doesn't necessarily mean an open mind.
Posted by: Kristen at October 20, 2005 07:22 PM
Kristen - thanks, added voices are always welcome. My personal opinion is that faith does not need to be a matter of religion. I know people who have a great deal of faith in science, in government, in human nature; and faith in those things can lead people to be as rigid and dognatic as faith in God.
That's one of things I always liked about the movie "Contact" - the nice parallel it showed between faith, whether that faith is in science or God.
Posted by: Steven at October 20, 2005 08:26 PM
