Thank you for a beautiful and honest text. My view is that no one can define whether you are a Christian or not, that is between you and God. One of Jesus’ core teachings is not to judge, and that includes not judging another person’s faith if you ask me.
I recognize the elements of your Christian practice. The main difference may be that I do believe in God based on mystical experiences I’ve had. Over time I’ve stopped trying to understand God, because the intellectual image of God often stands in the way of my lived experience. Instead I try to “feel” God, to let go, and let God shepherd me along the narrow path that leads to life.
I trust what Jesus teaches in Luke 6:43–45: you know a good tree by its fruit. When I look at my own life, I try to do what yields the fruit that Paul describes in Galatians 5:22–23, where love is the one that matters most to me. Those are the signs by which I recognize God’s presence in me and in the world. Not in definitions or belief, but in what grows in me.
Keep up the good work. Looking forward to reading more from you.
I agree, Timmy. It's all about fruit. Whether someone identifies a particular way or not is kind of irrelevant to the fruit they produce. That applies to people who identify as "believing Christians" but have rotten or no fruit, just as much as it applies to people who do not identify this way but produce good fruit. Jesus will recognise those who bear good fruit, and send us away when we do not.
I think two words you use this essay, denote precisely the tension that you experience: belief and practice. Most Christians I encounter belief that Christianity is a belief system, one that results in a certain set of orthodox practices, like going to church, like participating in the liturgy, like taking the sacraments. That is one kind of Christian. And those Christians have a tendency to reject anyone who doesn’t believe as they believe, and practice as they practice. But there are others, such as yourself, such as perhaps even myself, that believe that belief begins with the practices themselves. The practices are the root, not the belief, and the practice is rooted in the beliefs that manifest from practices themselves. That type of Christian tends to be more open minded, tends to be more accepting, tends to be more inclusive.
I know that sounds a little circuitous. I hope you’ll excuse the lack of sophistication in the way that I’m explaining it.
But perhaps you understand all the same. The sum of it for me is that some Christians require orthodox belief and others require orthodox practice, or orthopraxis.
Most of the Christians I know on Substack are orthodoxy over orthopraxis. But there are a few, such as yourself, such as myself, I get believed that the most appropriate way to follow Jesus is to do the things that he did not simply believe things about him that he never talked about.
Religion in the 1st century in general was much more orthopraxy than theological orthodoxy. Christianity starting in the 4th century was really the first world religion I'm aware of that made adherence to certain theological presuppositions the crux of its message.
I think I might have said this before. I see more of the Christ in you than I see in a lot of Christians. I'd happily stand next to you and proclaim you as a fellow pilgrim.
I see your language in the post talking about "a god" which infers a omnipotent anthropomorphic deity "up there", which I think modern cosmology and philosophy has pretty much shut the door on. I'd recommend considering God in the Monist/panentheistic sense, which also aligns with how several early church thinkers conceived of God (and seen in other religious traditions as well, such as some branches of Hinduism and Amerindian religions).
Ultimately what lies at the core of the Gospel message (as taught by Jesus in the Synoptics, not the post-Resurrection apocalypticism of Paul primarily focused on Christ as an angelic representative of God crucified), which is bringing the reign/spirit of God into human community through selfless service to others. That's the consistent theme one sees over and over. Add in the epistles of 1 John and James-God is love, and use that as your guiding light. If one does, you realize the dogmatic separations and delineations of human religion are an impediment and not a driver of the Gospel.
I didn't mean to infer that. If there is a god, he certainly isn't a man in the sky. Perhaps god is the fundamental “stuff” of reality. This is a model of god I can get onboard with, but I have so many questions. The most important (at least to me) is does god in a monist/panentheistic model have a mind? Does he (or 'it' might be the better word) think and feel?
It's interesting to read this as I am reading Miguel de Unamuno's "Tragic Sense of Life," where he is wrestling with this very issue -- broadly, reason vs faith, though to put it that way does the greatness of his work no justice at all. I think you might really enjoy this book. At any rate, let me say what the agony is for me: death, my own death, the deaths of those I love, the great and terrible mystery of the departure of the soul, that a living man can become a corpse, a person become a thing. Where does the light of the face and the eyes go?
In the end, all I am looking for in religion is an answer to this, because annihilation is unbearable, even if reason leads me inexorably to it, my heart rebels, and there is something in that rebellion that reason's cold rejection does not answer, cannot meet; there are truths known with the heart -- though this does not dull the blade of reason or its deadly sharpness.
The tension is inescapable; my mind leads to skepticism, my heart to belief, I have found no resolution. I wrestle to turn reason to faith's account, and every time I think I succeed, I find I have failed; I turn and try again; reason must be satisfied, but the heart can't be rejected, so there is no rest. So much of Christianity has been a resting with false and inadequate structures of reason, created to support faith, but finally failing and betraying it.
The people who would reject you, I think underneath are somehow aware of the fragility of their own "reasonable structures" that they think have reconciled reason with faith -- they are aware of the fragility and they are afraid that if they listen to you, their own faith will be undermined, because it is weak, and yet it is their only bulwark against the terror and absurdity of death.
The only thing I know from my own experience of Christianity is that I come each year to Holy Week and to Pascha (our Easter), and there laid out for me is the death of all mankind, of the world, of everything true and holy and innocent and beautiful and vitally alive -- and the victory of imperishable life and love over death and hell. Somehow, against all reason, this must be true, not merely generally, not merely symbolically, but really, factually, in flesh and blood and bone and not just ideas. But how could this be? And how could I know it if it were? I have no idea. "I believe; O Lord, help my unbelief" is the only place I end. And I have no patience with all the careful philosophical justifications of faith. They all fail.
This is where I also have no patience with the modernists and existentialists. I love Bultmann too, but in the end, Bultmann is offering a vapor in place of faith -- it will not do, when I stand in the face of death, it is not enough, it is a falsehood, a false peace.
Anyway I hope you understand I am not arguing with you at all, I am standing in this space with you, and I am just telling you about my own wrestling with it. In the wrestling we are two "gathered in his name" and thus we are the church and we are both in it.
Peace and joy in the risen one, even if that peace and joy is something we hope for and cannot see, somehow in a mystery, we *can* see it and possess it now.
This felt so personal as if I am listening to myself speak. Even though I got introduced to the idea of Jesus not being God through your posts primarily. But now that I can't unread what I have read, I feel like I am in a similar situation. However, for me historical fact has become paramount and I cannot bring myself to receive communion or pray to Jesus because it feels false. I can still pray to God and consider Jesus as a human par excellence but I cannot see him as God and yet I still call myself an agnostic catholic. Don't know if that makes sense.
It makes sense. I totally understand. I've certainly felt that my prayers to Jesus were false, many times. Same goes for communion.
May I ask: do you want to pray to Jesus as God? Or are you comfortable with your position? I hope you don't feel there's anything wrong with your view, because there isn't.
Excellent piece man. I am going through a period of intense doubt right now. When I started believing in evolution and the problem of animal suffering became more evident to me the possibility of an all-powerful all-loving and all-good God seemed hard to believe.
Idk man sometimes I think its all nonsense. But the hope I have that Jesus rose from the dead is the one thing keeping me going. I would respectfully disagree with you in that I do believe Jesus did do miracles and rose from the dead but that's a faith claim not something I can impose upon you. And I grew up Hindu too. Something about the Christian story is appealing on an existential level. And I hope its true. Thats all.
Hey dude. I feel you on this. As a vegan, I would treat animal suffering the same way as I see human suffering: that the world is fallen due to free will (of people and animals), and that free will is required for all of us (including non-human animals) to have a loving relationship with God. Evil exists because of free will, not just our own but of spiritual beings too. I used to think angels and so on were made-up and unncessary; but I'm increasingly of the view that they're necessary for evil to make sense. Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I shared this link in response to the article, above, but I'll include here too. You might find it helpful (I certainly did)! https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/martin-luther-king-jr-s-conception-of-god/
This is so good! Agree with you too. Great article the church life journal is so good. And idk if you've heard of the omission theodicy by Brian Cutter, it literally is very much about this.
I came to the same conclusions as you on this. If you watch Gavin Ortlund he hints at the angelic fall too. I'm increasingly convinced that there are evil spirits at play. Thats why Jesus casts demons out. Maybe truly there are things we dont know.
You’ve described what I’m going through. Though I think I still believe in (some) miracles and the resurrection, I don’t know how to reconcile many aspects of the Christian God, it seems impossible. The more I try to, the less God seems to be like I used to know and the further I feel like I’m getting from today’s Christianity. Sometimes I wonder if there even is a god too… but I’m still holding on to my identity as a Christian
I for one was surprised, maybe shocked, in reading this that you so strongly identify yourself as a Christian. I should say pleased, even thrilled, as well (Why? Home team boosterism, maybe? Not sure, but that was my response.) My surprise was not that I don’t think you are a Christian — you are so clearly a follower of Jesus, of The Way — but because I suspected you would not have thought yourself to be. What you lay out here is how the deep knowing of the body engaged in motion, and sense, and physical acts, how the bonds of human community, how the truth of beauty speaks under and above the intellect. Your intellect is ceaselessly at work — bless it! — and the rest of you is at work as well. Engage in the liturgy. Eat the bread. And let your intellect continue its tireless questioning and discovery.
I think that’s what most of us are doing, you’re just more self aware.
I like the definition of faith as trust, a decision to put your trust in someone (as in the expression “to keep faith with”). It’s crazy that we’ve turned it into “knowing beyond doubt,” especially since there’s not a whole lot you can actually know beyond doubt (math, I guess?).
Tolkien created this beautiful word, estel, which means something like “hope and trust.” I kind of prefer it to the word “faith,” and I love that some of his characters are very bitter about it and would prefer something more comforting.
Thank you for sharing this so honestly. I believe Christianity ultimately stands or falls on who Jesus truly is and whether He really rose from the dead. I appreciate your willingness to wrestle with these questions, and I sincerely hope your search leads you to the certainty you're longing for. 🙏🏼❤️
I believe what you believe. I want there to be a god too. The stained glass windows and hymns tug at distant place in the most melancholy way. Thank you for this, you always carry such peace and depth in your writing. Your words have a way of staying beyond a simple reading.
I would like to but it would be more so like a devotion to a saint. Its just however with years of learning stuff difficult to unlearn some things. I just don't care about views to be honest (I guess it will keep changing over the course of my life), don't wish to overshare but I've had my fair share of scrupulous religious trauma and I wanted to break free from it but felt too bound. Call it Providence but your posts were the nail in the coffin.
We are both converts to Catholicism but came to it from opposite directions. It was brave to put yourself out there in the current polarized public market of ideas. I think a lot of priests believed as you do in the recent past. However, if you cannot accept the claims of the major creeds, and do not believe in the real presence of the Eucharist you are not really Catholic.
But keep doing it. Go through the motions. I would caution against receiving communion if you do not believe in the real presence. But otherwise from the sacramentals to the Sacraments real grace is given. I’ll pray that you will receive the gift of faith. That is the greatest miracle of all.
Thank you for a beautiful and honest text. My view is that no one can define whether you are a Christian or not, that is between you and God. One of Jesus’ core teachings is not to judge, and that includes not judging another person’s faith if you ask me.
I recognize the elements of your Christian practice. The main difference may be that I do believe in God based on mystical experiences I’ve had. Over time I’ve stopped trying to understand God, because the intellectual image of God often stands in the way of my lived experience. Instead I try to “feel” God, to let go, and let God shepherd me along the narrow path that leads to life.
I trust what Jesus teaches in Luke 6:43–45: you know a good tree by its fruit. When I look at my own life, I try to do what yields the fruit that Paul describes in Galatians 5:22–23, where love is the one that matters most to me. Those are the signs by which I recognize God’s presence in me and in the world. Not in definitions or belief, but in what grows in me.
Keep up the good work. Looking forward to reading more from you.
I agree, Timmy. It's all about fruit. Whether someone identifies a particular way or not is kind of irrelevant to the fruit they produce. That applies to people who identify as "believing Christians" but have rotten or no fruit, just as much as it applies to people who do not identify this way but produce good fruit. Jesus will recognise those who bear good fruit, and send us away when we do not.
I think two words you use this essay, denote precisely the tension that you experience: belief and practice. Most Christians I encounter belief that Christianity is a belief system, one that results in a certain set of orthodox practices, like going to church, like participating in the liturgy, like taking the sacraments. That is one kind of Christian. And those Christians have a tendency to reject anyone who doesn’t believe as they believe, and practice as they practice. But there are others, such as yourself, such as perhaps even myself, that believe that belief begins with the practices themselves. The practices are the root, not the belief, and the practice is rooted in the beliefs that manifest from practices themselves. That type of Christian tends to be more open minded, tends to be more accepting, tends to be more inclusive.
I know that sounds a little circuitous. I hope you’ll excuse the lack of sophistication in the way that I’m explaining it.
But perhaps you understand all the same. The sum of it for me is that some Christians require orthodox belief and others require orthodox practice, or orthopraxis.
Most of the Christians I know on Substack are orthodoxy over orthopraxis. But there are a few, such as yourself, such as myself, I get believed that the most appropriate way to follow Jesus is to do the things that he did not simply believe things about him that he never talked about.
I agree. Well said.
Religion in the 1st century in general was much more orthopraxy than theological orthodoxy. Christianity starting in the 4th century was really the first world religion I'm aware of that made adherence to certain theological presuppositions the crux of its message.
Well said!
I think I might have said this before. I see more of the Christ in you than I see in a lot of Christians. I'd happily stand next to you and proclaim you as a fellow pilgrim.
Thank you, Dr. Waldock.
I see your language in the post talking about "a god" which infers a omnipotent anthropomorphic deity "up there", which I think modern cosmology and philosophy has pretty much shut the door on. I'd recommend considering God in the Monist/panentheistic sense, which also aligns with how several early church thinkers conceived of God (and seen in other religious traditions as well, such as some branches of Hinduism and Amerindian religions).
Ultimately what lies at the core of the Gospel message (as taught by Jesus in the Synoptics, not the post-Resurrection apocalypticism of Paul primarily focused on Christ as an angelic representative of God crucified), which is bringing the reign/spirit of God into human community through selfless service to others. That's the consistent theme one sees over and over. Add in the epistles of 1 John and James-God is love, and use that as your guiding light. If one does, you realize the dogmatic separations and delineations of human religion are an impediment and not a driver of the Gospel.
I didn't mean to infer that. If there is a god, he certainly isn't a man in the sky. Perhaps god is the fundamental “stuff” of reality. This is a model of god I can get onboard with, but I have so many questions. The most important (at least to me) is does god in a monist/panentheistic model have a mind? Does he (or 'it' might be the better word) think and feel?
It's interesting to read this as I am reading Miguel de Unamuno's "Tragic Sense of Life," where he is wrestling with this very issue -- broadly, reason vs faith, though to put it that way does the greatness of his work no justice at all. I think you might really enjoy this book. At any rate, let me say what the agony is for me: death, my own death, the deaths of those I love, the great and terrible mystery of the departure of the soul, that a living man can become a corpse, a person become a thing. Where does the light of the face and the eyes go?
In the end, all I am looking for in religion is an answer to this, because annihilation is unbearable, even if reason leads me inexorably to it, my heart rebels, and there is something in that rebellion that reason's cold rejection does not answer, cannot meet; there are truths known with the heart -- though this does not dull the blade of reason or its deadly sharpness.
The tension is inescapable; my mind leads to skepticism, my heart to belief, I have found no resolution. I wrestle to turn reason to faith's account, and every time I think I succeed, I find I have failed; I turn and try again; reason must be satisfied, but the heart can't be rejected, so there is no rest. So much of Christianity has been a resting with false and inadequate structures of reason, created to support faith, but finally failing and betraying it.
The people who would reject you, I think underneath are somehow aware of the fragility of their own "reasonable structures" that they think have reconciled reason with faith -- they are aware of the fragility and they are afraid that if they listen to you, their own faith will be undermined, because it is weak, and yet it is their only bulwark against the terror and absurdity of death.
The only thing I know from my own experience of Christianity is that I come each year to Holy Week and to Pascha (our Easter), and there laid out for me is the death of all mankind, of the world, of everything true and holy and innocent and beautiful and vitally alive -- and the victory of imperishable life and love over death and hell. Somehow, against all reason, this must be true, not merely generally, not merely symbolically, but really, factually, in flesh and blood and bone and not just ideas. But how could this be? And how could I know it if it were? I have no idea. "I believe; O Lord, help my unbelief" is the only place I end. And I have no patience with all the careful philosophical justifications of faith. They all fail.
This is where I also have no patience with the modernists and existentialists. I love Bultmann too, but in the end, Bultmann is offering a vapor in place of faith -- it will not do, when I stand in the face of death, it is not enough, it is a falsehood, a false peace.
Anyway I hope you understand I am not arguing with you at all, I am standing in this space with you, and I am just telling you about my own wrestling with it. In the wrestling we are two "gathered in his name" and thus we are the church and we are both in it.
Peace and joy in the risen one, even if that peace and joy is something we hope for and cannot see, somehow in a mystery, we *can* see it and possess it now.
Beautifully said.
I'm petrified of death. Take the atheist's view seriously and I slide toward nihilism—what's the point of any of it, then?
Thank you for this, truly. I don't think I've let that fear drive me toward faith before, but now that you've named it, I think I may start to.
This felt so personal as if I am listening to myself speak. Even though I got introduced to the idea of Jesus not being God through your posts primarily. But now that I can't unread what I have read, I feel like I am in a similar situation. However, for me historical fact has become paramount and I cannot bring myself to receive communion or pray to Jesus because it feels false. I can still pray to God and consider Jesus as a human par excellence but I cannot see him as God and yet I still call myself an agnostic catholic. Don't know if that makes sense.
It makes sense. I totally understand. I've certainly felt that my prayers to Jesus were false, many times. Same goes for communion.
May I ask: do you want to pray to Jesus as God? Or are you comfortable with your position? I hope you don't feel there's anything wrong with your view, because there isn't.
Excellent piece man. I am going through a period of intense doubt right now. When I started believing in evolution and the problem of animal suffering became more evident to me the possibility of an all-powerful all-loving and all-good God seemed hard to believe.
Idk man sometimes I think its all nonsense. But the hope I have that Jesus rose from the dead is the one thing keeping me going. I would respectfully disagree with you in that I do believe Jesus did do miracles and rose from the dead but that's a faith claim not something I can impose upon you. And I grew up Hindu too. Something about the Christian story is appealing on an existential level. And I hope its true. Thats all.
Hey dude. I feel you on this. As a vegan, I would treat animal suffering the same way as I see human suffering: that the world is fallen due to free will (of people and animals), and that free will is required for all of us (including non-human animals) to have a loving relationship with God. Evil exists because of free will, not just our own but of spiritual beings too. I used to think angels and so on were made-up and unncessary; but I'm increasingly of the view that they're necessary for evil to make sense. Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I shared this link in response to the article, above, but I'll include here too. You might find it helpful (I certainly did)! https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/martin-luther-king-jr-s-conception-of-god/
This is so good! Agree with you too. Great article the church life journal is so good. And idk if you've heard of the omission theodicy by Brian Cutter, it literally is very much about this.
I came to the same conclusions as you on this. If you watch Gavin Ortlund he hints at the angelic fall too. I'm increasingly convinced that there are evil spirits at play. Thats why Jesus casts demons out. Maybe truly there are things we dont know.
Thanks for the recommendations - I haven't heard of either, so wil check them out!
You’ve described what I’m going through. Though I think I still believe in (some) miracles and the resurrection, I don’t know how to reconcile many aspects of the Christian God, it seems impossible. The more I try to, the less God seems to be like I used to know and the further I feel like I’m getting from today’s Christianity. Sometimes I wonder if there even is a god too… but I’m still holding on to my identity as a Christian
I for one was surprised, maybe shocked, in reading this that you so strongly identify yourself as a Christian. I should say pleased, even thrilled, as well (Why? Home team boosterism, maybe? Not sure, but that was my response.) My surprise was not that I don’t think you are a Christian — you are so clearly a follower of Jesus, of The Way — but because I suspected you would not have thought yourself to be. What you lay out here is how the deep knowing of the body engaged in motion, and sense, and physical acts, how the bonds of human community, how the truth of beauty speaks under and above the intellect. Your intellect is ceaselessly at work — bless it! — and the rest of you is at work as well. Engage in the liturgy. Eat the bread. And let your intellect continue its tireless questioning and discovery.
As always, well said. Thank you!
I think that’s what most of us are doing, you’re just more self aware.
I like the definition of faith as trust, a decision to put your trust in someone (as in the expression “to keep faith with”). It’s crazy that we’ve turned it into “knowing beyond doubt,” especially since there’s not a whole lot you can actually know beyond doubt (math, I guess?).
Tolkien created this beautiful word, estel, which means something like “hope and trust.” I kind of prefer it to the word “faith,” and I love that some of his characters are very bitter about it and would prefer something more comforting.
Hey Joseph. Thanks for sharing. I found Martin Luther King Jr's conception of God really helpful. Maybe you will too. Interested to know what you think! https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/martin-luther-king-jr-s-conception-of-god/
Thank you for sharing this so honestly. I believe Christianity ultimately stands or falls on who Jesus truly is and whether He really rose from the dead. I appreciate your willingness to wrestle with these questions, and I sincerely hope your search leads you to the certainty you're longing for. 🙏🏼❤️
Well done. And you're right, Christianity has and is becoming an exclusive club. Fortunately for them, i've never been a joiner type.
Fragments, a serialized novel
I believe what you believe. I want there to be a god too. The stained glass windows and hymns tug at distant place in the most melancholy way. Thank you for this, you always carry such peace and depth in your writing. Your words have a way of staying beyond a simple reading.
Thank you!
I would like to but it would be more so like a devotion to a saint. Its just however with years of learning stuff difficult to unlearn some things. I just don't care about views to be honest (I guess it will keep changing over the course of my life), don't wish to overshare but I've had my fair share of scrupulous religious trauma and I wanted to break free from it but felt too bound. Call it Providence but your posts were the nail in the coffin.
We are both converts to Catholicism but came to it from opposite directions. It was brave to put yourself out there in the current polarized public market of ideas. I think a lot of priests believed as you do in the recent past. However, if you cannot accept the claims of the major creeds, and do not believe in the real presence of the Eucharist you are not really Catholic.
But keep doing it. Go through the motions. I would caution against receiving communion if you do not believe in the real presence. But otherwise from the sacramentals to the Sacraments real grace is given. I’ll pray that you will receive the gift of faith. That is the greatest miracle of all.