The Scope of Truth

My next meeting with Rev. Linda is rapidly approaching and I feel like a child with a project deadline. What has changed over the last month? I've been back and forth, sometimes I feel enlightened, inspired and free to accept my destiny and move forward in it, while other times, I am frustrated and lost or totally distracted--satisfied on the surface to continue playing out this farce. The good that I see is too good to be true while the muck that surrounds me has already permeated my being. Which is more real?

In my desire to push myself along the path and not linger for too long at any one point, I started reading Merton's No Man is an Island. It seemed to be written for the general seeker, whereas Nouwen is written for Christians in crisis. Despite his niche, I find it odd that a lot of what Nouwen writes resonates with me...and how could it. I am definitely not at the same place Nouwen was when he composed this book and yet he is still able to reach out and touch me with the insight of one who is in the midst of the dark night.

Sometimes I feel as if I am fighting too hard..."why do you kick against the pricks," while other times I feel as if I will give in too easily. Of course, Merton is profound and not at all orthodox in his explanations. He is able to balance between belief and rationality as he untangles the mysterious web of the conscious cosmos. I just don't want to believe because I need to believe. I want to understand what I believe. Blind faith is like blind love, without any real value because it is totally ignorant to the object of its devotion.

There needs to be a distinction between faith in a God and faith in Christianity. For me, once I accept by faith that God exists, then I must decide between the various explanations of that existence. These explanations, or religions, rise and fall on their ability to rationally, systematically and consistently elucidate their position. Having faith in God is difficult enough without adding the extra burden of accepting ridiculous explanations as to the nature of that existence.

Yes, truth may be elusive and mysterious, it may even be messy but it is not sloppy. It is not slapped together without any thought given to the whole. Truth is pervasive and therefore must be internally consistent, that is not to say there are no paradoxes but the paradoxes should be fundamental--they should stem from the very core of a system, they should not arise at the intersection of the resulting tenets. I do not mind a grandiose explanation of reality, however, I do take issue with one that fails to appreciate scope of truth.