I'm at the point in my semester where my cohort is stressed, 4-ish weeks of class left, a ton to do, and unsure how to get it done. In the past, that looks like me drinking a LOT of coffee, eating a LOT of junk food, struggling with sleep, and still needing to perform.
I'm trying a different approach, a holistic health plan. I'm CUTTING my caffeine (a little morning coffee, then green tea or decaf tea). I'm increasing fruit and veggie intake, eating whole grain (Kashi is my best friend), greek yogurt for extra protein, and tons of nuts. I'm forcing myself to go to bed. I'm choosing to do yoga before bed most nights. I'm starting to believe that taking care of myself mentally, emotionally, physically, and spiritually will actually allow me to be more productive.
Spiritual "taking care of" is at an interesting place right now. Church is a valuable part of that, but I am finding myself wrestling through a lot of questions and ideas right now- at times leaving me feeling far from God. Part of me believes that my perception of distance in this will resolve itself as I wrestle with questions and ideas and concerns, so I'm ok with it for right now. Is that spiritual growth? I don't know. Maybe I don't need to.
I was also reflecting on my ride home last night about how I'm just getting to the point of comfort in spiritual unknowns. I was realizing last night that one thing that may have been (not sure, still processing through it) problematic to me growing up was the emphasis on "apologetics"- the idea of knowing what you believe and why you believe it. Why was this problematic? I think (again, still processing) that the idea pushed me into a mindframe of "What is right and why", which turns into "This is right, this is wrong", which turns into "I am right, you are wrong", which ignores things like original and translator interpretation, whether we do or not emphasize context and culture... all things that can help us understand the rationale of our beliefs while abandoning word choice such as "I am right, you are wrong". We would possibly state our beliefs and values in ways that reflect our actual predicament- such as "I believe the author's intent was..." and "I feel this is consistent with the whole of scripture because..." Does this allow us to understand to new depths? I believe so. Does this make us less argumentative? I believe it can (some people will argue anything, let's be honest...)
So, I am attempting to practice holistic health. I'll monitor what if any impact it makes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think what is called 'apologetics' today is really what it used to be. Originally, it was intended to defend one's faith in the face of opposition. In other words, it was a way for a minority of people to justify their beliefs to others. It wasn't a proof that their beliefs were the only true beliefs. Some of my favourite quotes of Augustine are when he derides this kind of 'proof' mentality (I posted many moons ago here).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I want to back pedal a bit and prod you on the wording of authorial intent. Does the author have a privileged vantage point of her writings? I reject such for two reasons: (1) it puts the author in a position that she can never change, lest her privileged interpretation was incorrect; and (2) it makes it impossible for others to interact with the text or appropriate it in other contexts (i.e., any quotation is at best acceptable). I hold that each and every act of reading (which is always interpretive!) creates something new, a new 'text' that is different from what the author may have intended. In other words, I can read an engineering book and find something philosophical or theological in it even though the author 'intended' to explain load-bearing walls and weight dynamics.
With that said, I want to agree with the jist of your statement. I don't think it'll make us less argumentative because, in all honesty, we're too proud. Nobody wants to feel that their deeply held beliefs (especially the religious ones) are wrong ... and we too easily interpret any differences of opinion as attacks on our own beliefs. Most people can accept being incomplete (as long as it doesn't mean that it can be inferred that they're completely wrong!); the problem is that most people also don't see their deeply held beliefs as being incomplete.