Die verwysings in die media na 'n moontlike oorlog teen Iran het die laaste tyd ietwat afgeneem. Beteken dit dat die waarskynlikheid van so 'n oorlog ook afgeneem het, of is dit net die stilte voor die storm? In hierdie essay wys ek daarop dat daar 'n hele paar dinge is wat eers in plek moet wees voordat die Weste by so 'n oorlog betrokke sal raak. Maar wanneer dit gebeur, kan ons verwag dat dit maklik tot 'n wye Midde-Oosterse oorlog kan uitkring.
Daar was momente in die geskiedenis wat altyd onthou sal word omdat dit so ironies was. Een daarvan is die verwysing van die destydse Britse eerste minister Neville Chamberlain op 30 September 1938 na "vrede vir ons tyd". Dit was kort nadat die belangrikste Europese moondhede en Nazi Duitsland die Munich Ooreenkoms gesluit het, waarvolgens hulle die Nazi's tegemoet gekom het met hul instemming tot die anneksasie van Sudetenland in Tsjeggo-Slowakye. Binne 'n jaar daarna het die Tweede Wêreldoorlog uitgebreek.
Daar geld vandag 'n baie soortgelyke situasie. Nadat die spanning met Iran in die eerste paar maande van 2012 aansienlik toegeneem het, het die groot moondhede (Ses Nasies) intussen hul gesprek met Iran rondom die land se atoom verrykingsprogram hervat. Die eerste gesprek het op 14 April in Istanbul in Turkye plaasgevind en die volgende byeenkoms is op 23 Mei in Bagdad in Irak. Dit lyk of hulle die Irannese op 'n manier probeer tegemoet kom - soos die Europese moondhede destyds met die Nazi's. Barak Obama is gewoon die hedendaagse Chamberlain wat agteroor buig om 'n oorlog te probeer vermy. Die kaarte is egter baie swaar teen enige vreedsame oplossing gelaai. Die kans dat so 'n oorlog gaan uitbreek is baie groot - al wat dit teëhou is die feit dat die wêreldsituasie (vanuit 'n Westerse perspektief) nog nie heeltemal vir so 'n oorlog gereed is nie.
Waarom is so 'n oorlog bykans onafwendbaar?
Die enkele belangrikste rede vir so 'n oorlog is seker dat Israel die Irannese verrykingsprogram as 'n eksistensiële bedreiging beskou. Dit beteken dat die Israeli's van mening is dat hierdie program tot die kernbewapening van Iran kan lei, wat die toekomstige voortbestaan van Israel sal bedreig. Die Israeli's verwys in hierdie verband na die Nazi holokarst - die eerste minister Benjamin Netanyahu het reeds genoem dat hy sal toesien dat so iets nie weer gebeur nie. Die Israeli's sal nie enige kanse met hul eie voortbestaan as 'n volk in die land Israel neem nie.
Die Israeli's wys daarop dat die Irannese leiers al verskeie dreigemente in hierdie verband gemaak het - op Sondag 20 Mei het die militêre stafhoof, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, weer tydens 'n toespraak aan 'n verdedigingsbyeenkoms gesê: “The Iranian nation is standing for its cause and that is the full annihilation of Israel". Die Irannese het ook 'n tyd gelede dit reggekry om 'n verrykkingsgraad van 20% te bereik (wat beteken dat verryking vir wapendoeleindes binne hul bereik is). Voorts is hulle baie sku om met die Internasionale Atoomenergie Agentskap (IAEA) saam te werk - veral wat hul ondergrondse fasiliteit by Parchin betref. Die Israeli's is van mening dat die Irannese vir tyd speel in 'n poging om alle bewyse van kern-verwante ploftoetse daar te verwyder. Verder is hulle bekommerd oor die ander ondergrondse fasiliteit by Dasht e-Kavir (Groot Sout Woestyn). Die Irannese bedreiging het oor die jare toegeneem en is nou op 'n stadium waar dit 'n wesentlike gevaar vir Israel kan inhou.
Ons moet egter nie die Israelse bedreiging los van die groter prentjie sien nie. Israel se belange is ten nouste met die Anglo-Amerikaanse belange verweef. Ons kan eintlik van die Anglo-Amerika-Israel belange praat. Die belangrikste rede waarom die Engelse destyds tot die Israeli's se vestiging in die land Israel toegestem het (die Balfour Verklaring), was omdat dit 'n eenvoudige manier was om 'n permanente vastrap plek vir hul eie belange in die Midde-Ooste te verseker. Vanuit 'n geopolitieke perspektief was dit 'n briljante skuif.
Die Anglo-Amerikaners het deur die eeue hul belange deur vrede sowel as oorlog bevorder. Hulle werk volgens 'n langtermyn plan waarvolgens hulle hul finansiële belange deur opeenvolgende oorlog en vredesiklusse bevorder (sien die artikel wat ek op 8 Januarie 2012 op hierdie blog gepos het, "Is 'n Irannese Oorlog op hande? - 'n ondersoek na oorlog en vredesiklusse"). My studie van historiese oorlog en vredesiklusse dui daarop dat ons rondom die jaar 2014 'n baie groot oorlog teen Iran kan verwag (Hierdie datum is op die 4 oorlog en vredesiklusse van die vorige 100 jaar gebaseer). Die rede waarom Iran (saam met Sirië) vir hierdie oorlog op gelyn word, is nie net omdat hulle 'n eksistensiële bedreiging vir Israel inhou nie, maar ook omdat hulle 'n kritiese bedreiging vir die Anglo-Amerikaanse belange in die Islamitiese Midde-Ooste inhou. Sulke oorloë volg tipies wanneer daar 'n kompeterende moondheid is wat die Anglo-Amerikaanse belange ernstig bedreig.
As dit sou gebeur dat Islamitiese groepe regdeur die gebied waar die Arabiese Lente voorgekom het met Iran affilieer, sal hulle die Weste effektief uit daardie gebied kan uitsluit. Maar nou word die hele Sunni-groepering onder die Moslems (die Moslembroeder-groepe ingesluit) in effek in 'n losse alliansie teen die Iran-Sirië-Hezbollah groepering betrek (sien die artikel wat ek op 27 Februarie 2012 op hierdie blog gepos het: "Die Siriese konflik verdeel Israel se vyande"). Dit beteken dat bykans die hele Moslem wêreld (die Midde-Oosterse Sunni groepering) gedwing word om met die Weste saam te werk omdat hulle Iran as 'n vyand beskou - hoofsaaklik omdat Iran die Siriese regering teen die rebelle ondersteun. Dit is waarom dit so belangrik is dat die aanloop tot so 'n oorlog reg "bestuur" word om te verseker dat die Weste nie net as beskermers van Israel optree nie, maar ook van die Sunni Moslems (soos hulle in Libië gedoen het). So 'n oorlog sal baie van die lande waar die Arabiese Lente plaasgevind het, in 'n meer permanente alliansie met die Weste betrek.
Daar is ook ekonomiese redes vir so 'n oorlog. Soos ek in die genoemde artikel oor oorlog en vredesiklusse aantoon, het al die groot oorloë oor die afgelope eeu groei in die Westerse ekonomieë gestimuleer. Al hierdie oorloë het dan ook op 'n periode van ernstige ekonomiese insinking gevolg. Die oorlogsfase begin met 'n groot finansiële krisis en gepaardgaande resessie/depressie (oor die afgelope eeu: 1907-8, 1929-33, 1957-58, 1980-82), gevolg deur 'n periode van ekonomiese stagnasie en 'n verdere resessie, waarna die oorlog uitbreek. Die mees onlangse siklus het duidelik met die ekonomiese krisis en "groot resessie" van 2008-9 begin. Verskeie Europese ekonomieë is tans besig om 'n verdere resessie in te gaan (sommige is al lankal daarin) en die kans is goed dat dit die VSA ekonomie kan aftrek. Dit is tipies wanneer ons die volgende oorlog kan verwag.
Wat moet eers in gereedheid gebring word?
Daar is egter baie dinge wat eers in gereedheid gebring moet word voordat die Weste met so 'n oorlog gemaklik sal wees. Ek gaan gewoon 'n aantal daarvan kortliks toelig:
1. Die belangrikste gevaar vir die Westerse belange is dat 'n Israeliese aanval teen Iran die Moslem wêreld teen Israel sal verenig. Dit is waarom die VSA baie sterk daaroor voel dat so 'n aanval binne die raamwerk van breër alliansie plaasvind wat nie alleen NAVO nie, maar ook belangrike Moslem lande soos Katar, die Verenigde Emirate en selfs Saoedi-Arabië insluit. Dit is ook die rede waarom die VSA so by Israel aanhou om die vredesproses met die Palestyne aan die gang te kry - al bereik hulle nie enige resultate nie. Dit temper die negatiewe sentiment jeens Israel. Dit is dan ook opvallend dat Benjamin Netanyahu vroeg in Mei die Kadima party by sy regerende alliansie ingesluit het (nadat Kadima net twee weke te vore van leierskap verwissel het). Sy vorige alliansie vennote het nie aan hom veel ruimte vir sulke onderhandelinge gegee nie - die Kadima party daarenteen, is sterk op vrede met die Palestyne gefokus.
Die nuwe alliansie plaas Israel in 'n uitstekende posisie om 'n aanval op Iran te loods. Dit is nie alleen die breedste regerende alliansie in Israel se geskiedenis nie (wat 'n baie stabiele regering beteken), dit sluit ook drie vorige stafhoofde van die Israeli weermag in, naamlik Ehud Barak (minister van verdediging), Shaul Mofaz (visie eerste minister - die Kadima leier) en Moshe Yaalon (minister van strategiese belange). Shaul Mofaz is nou verantwoordelik om die Palestynse weerstand teen die vredesproses af te breek en dit weer aan die gang te kry.
2. Dit is belangrik dat Hamas, die Moslem groep wat die Gaza gebied (direk suid van Israel) regeer, verder van die Iran alliansie vervreemd raak. Alhoewel Hamas hulleself tot onlangs nog primêr ten opsigte van hul vyandskap met Israel gedefinieer het, het die Siriese konflik hulle gedwing om van posisie te verander. Hulle steun nou die Siriese opposisie teenoor die regering wat op hul beurt deur die Irannese ondersteun word. Die rede vir hierdie verandering is dat die Siriese opposisie die Siriese Moslembroeders insluit wat soos Hamas 'n uitvloeisel van die Egiptiese Moslembroeders is. Daar is selfs berigte dat die Moslembroeders, wat 'n groot invloed in die Siriese Nasionale Raad het (wat as 'n buitelandse spreekbuis vir die opposisie optree), nou aktief met die bewapening van die Vrye Siriese Weermag begin het.
Daar is verskillende dinge wat Hamas na die middelgrond dwing. Nadat die verhouding tussen Iran en Hamas onlangs begin agteruit gaan het, het die Irannese begin om die Islamitiese Jihad, 'n ander groep in die Gaza gebied, van wapens te voorsien. Hamas bevind hulle dus nie meer aan die ekstreme end van die spektrum nie. Die pragmatisme van die ander Broeders groepe (veral die in Egipte, Tunisië en Sirië), dien ook as voorbeeld vir Hamas. Verder begin Hamas en Fatah, die ander Palestynse groep wat oor die Wesbank heers, ook al nouer saamwerk en daar is 'n moontlikheid dat hulle ooreenkoms om voor die einde van die jaar 'n verkiesing te hou, sal realiseer. Dan sal Hamas nie meer die absolute heerser in die Gaza gebied wees nie. Dit beteken dat Hamas, soos die ander Broeders groepe in die lande waar die Arabiese opstande suksesvol was, as 'n normale politieke party binne 'n demokratiese bestel sal begin funksioneer.
3. Die lande waar die Arabiese opstande plaasgevind het, moet stabiele regerings hê. Stabiele regerings sal verseker dat daar nie groepe in daardie lande is wat vryelik opereer en in staat sal wees om die anti-Iran alliansie te destabiliseer nie. Dit is veral waar van Libië waar daar in Junie 'n verkiesing gehou word. Verkiesings is egter nie genoeg nie; dit moet regerings wees wat 'n demokratiese bestel onderskryf, wat in staat is om daardie lande effektiewelik te beheer en bereid is om (vanuit 'n Westerse perspektief) met Westerse lande saam te werk. In Tunisië is daar reeds 'n stabiele regering wat grotendeels pro-Westers is. In Egipte is daar al parlementêre verkiesings gehou. Alhoewel die Islamiete omtrent 70% van die setels gewen het, het die parlement nie veel uitvoerende mag nie. Die presidensiële verkiesings is op 23 en 24 Mei, met die tweede rondte op 16 en 17 Junie.
4. Die Siriese konflik polariseer die Moslem wêreld. Hoe langer dit voortduur, hoe meer sal die Moslem lande waar die Arabiese opstande plaasgevind het - waar die Islamitiese partye (en veral die Moslembroeder groepe) oor die algemeen baie steun geniet - in 'n anti-Iran groepering gekonsolideer word. Dit beteken dat dit in die Westerse belang is dat die konflik solank moontlik uitgerek word. Sodra die omringende lande uiteindelik wel direk by die konflik betrokke raak (deur bv. buffersones), is die moontlikheid groot dat dit in 'n wyer Midde-Oosterse oorlog kan uitkring waarin lande soos Iran, Turkye, Katar, Saoedi-Arabië (en dalk Egipte, Tunisië en Libië) asook NAVO betrokke is. Selfs Rusland kan indirek (selfs direk?) daarby betrokke raak. So 'n oorlog sal die anti-Iran groepering redelik suksesvol binne 'n permanente alliansie met die Weste kan intrek.
Soos die Siriese konflik voortsleep, sal die twee opponerende Siriese groepe - wat hulle by die rebelle of die regering skaar - ook al duideliker uitkristaliseer. Die Siriese opposisie, wat redelik verdeeld is, sal moet begin saamwerk om 'n meer verteenwoordigende liggaam daar te stel met wie die "Vriende van Sirië" kan saamwerk. Daar is sommige onder die opposisie wat van mening is dat die invloed van die Moslembroeders in die Siriese Nasionale Raad te groot is en dat hulle Sirië op 'n ondemokratiese wyse sal regeer as hulle aan bewind kom. Hulle is ook bang dat die Sunni's wraak op die regerende Alawiete sal neem. Hoe dit ook al sy, dit lyk of die Vrye Siriese Weermag die afname in geweld tydens die pogings om die VN-plan van Kofi Annan te implementeer, gebruik om beter te organiseer en te bewapen. Die Internasionale Rooi Kruis is van mening dat die konflik in dele van Sirië reeds as 'n burgeroorlog geklassifiseer moet word. Dit beteken dat die Siriese konflik waarskynlik nog lank sal voortduur - tot die Weste gereed is om betrokke te raak.
5. Daar is verskeie algemene dinge wat hierby gevoeg kan word. So is daar die Israelse en NAVO se missielskilde wat al funksioneer, maar nog nie ten volle operasioneel is nie. Die Israeli's het hul nuut opgerigte skild 'n paar weke gelede getoets toe die Islamitiese Jihad Israel met missiele bestook het en dit was besonder suksesvol. Die VSA sal verder ook graag hul betrokkenheid in Afganistan wil afskaal voordat so 'n oorlog uitbreek (hul huidige betrokkenheid duur tot 2014). Op die afgelope NAVO vergadering is daar dan ook besluit dat die Afgaanse troepe vanaf mid-2013 die leiding in alle operasies sal begin neem.
En dan is daar natuurlik die VSA presidentsverkiesing in November. Dit is baie onwaarskynlik dat president Obama, wat homself as iemand voorhou wat vrede eerder as oorlog voorstaan, voor die verkiesing by 'n oorlog teen Iran betrokke sal raak. Alhoewel hy daarna meer gewillig sal wees, is die waarskynlikheid vir 'n oorlog baie groter as die Republikeinse kandidaat (waarskynlik Mitt Romney) die verkiesing in November wen. Laastens is daar die Westerse olieboikot teen Iran waarvolgens lande wat Irannese olie invoer tot 28 Junie tyd het om ander verskaffers te vind. Dit sal hopenlik die impak van so 'n oorlog op die olieprys verminder.
Slot
Alhoewel die konflik met Iran die laaste tyd al minder in die nuus was, is die Weste onverpoosd besig om hulle op so 'n moontlike oorlog voor te berei. Die VSA het die laaste tyd aan verskeie oorlogsoefeninge in die Middellandse See, Jordanië (langs die Siriese grens) en elders deelgeneem. Daar is ook baie ander dinge wat stadig maar seker in plek skuif sodat die Westerse belange deur so 'n oorlog bevorder kan word. Die heel belangrikste is seker om te verseker dat 'n wye Sunni-Moslem groepering van regoor die Midde-Ooste (en Noord-Afrika) by so 'n alliansie teen Iran ingesluit word.
Die hernude pogings om 'n ooreenkoms met Iran oor hul atoom verrykingsprogram te bereik, het wel die situasie ietwat getemper, maar ons moet dit waarskynlik in dieselfde lig sien as die destydse pogings om 'n kompromis met Nazi Duitsland te bereik. Dit is onwaarskynlik dat daar "vrede vir ons leeftyd" sal wees. Alhoewel niemand die toekoms kan voorspel nie, lyk dit so al of daar 'n baie groot oorlog op pad is.
Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (http://www.wmcloud.blogspot.com/)
Sunday, 20 May 2012
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Faith and reason - finding the balance.
God laid a great task upon humans -
to integrate the practical experience of their faith
with the prevalent intellectual perspective of the world.
Since the early days of Christianity, there were two clearly identifiable streams present, namely those who practised an essentially existentialist faith and those who accentuated the reasonable aspect of their belief. The first group had their roots in the early Jewish church and accentuated a practical intimate experience with God. The second had its roots in the Greek, especially Platonic, philosophy and used a more rational approach towards believing. To this day these currents are visible in Christianity. Today, more than before, it is a great challenge for Christians to integrate their faith with reason. How could they accomplish this? In this essay, I discuss the possibilities for doing so.
An existentialist faith
What is existentialist faith? It a trust in God which is practised and experienced in all aspects of daily life. This faith normally flows from a particular commitment to God. For such believers, this is a way of life - spirituality is at the centre of their whole existence. For them, it makes little sense to speak about spirituality if you do not experience it. The heart of spirituality is experience - the experience of God and his presence in a very intimate, intuitive way. This practical experience of Christian living is described by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1955), who accentuated his existential faith - at a time when rationality was overshadowing all other aspects of human life. From an existentialist point of view, science will never be able to give final answers. All knowledge is provisional - but faith is grounded in God.
This existential faith includes the desire to make a difference (it is, in fact, a very basic human desire). In a Christian context, this manifests itself primarily as the desire to bring others to faith in Christ. To share one's experience and motivate others to also commit themselves to God. Although there is a way in which this could be done on a purely existential level, these believers typically find themselves confronted by a barrier - most people do not easily believe if they are not convinced. They must believe that the Biblical message is trustworthy (see Paul's writings in this regard in Romans 10:14; 1 Tim. 1:15; also Mark 4:12). And to be convinced - especially in the present scientific era that we live in - these Christians need to argue, to use reason, to convince others. Although they ground their faith in an existential relation with God, they need reason to bring others to a similar faith. Like Paul, when he argued with the Greek philosophers in Athens.
Since most of these existential believers do not accentuate reason - for them it is not really important what science thinks - this aspect of their humanness is not very well developed. Having feelings of uncertainty result in them seeing the world around them, which operates for the most part according to reason, as a threat - even as a danger. To reinforce their faith, to guard their views against arguments that they are not able to answer, these believers use all sorts of rules and laws to protect themselves and their community against the outside world - which often results in them leading very legalistic lives. And this strategy is indeed very effective in protecting them against arguments from atheistic thinkers like Richard Dawkins - they do not read such books or watch movies [1].
But this strategy is not particularly successful in convincing other people to commit to such an existential faith. For outsiders, their arguments are typically not convincing enough and the legalistic practice of their faith pushes them away. For these reasons such groups normally decline numerically in a scientifically oriented world. In those parts of society where people are not really well educated, a strategy of promoting existential faith through, for example, "signs and wonders", could still yield good results. But this is becoming an ever smaller part of society. Another strategy, one born of desperation, is to work and pray for a religious revival which is probably the most dramatic expression of existential faith. This is surely a good ideal, but these are very scarce nowadays.
An intellectual belief
What is "intellectual belief"? This is a set of religious convictions which grow out of intellectual reasoning. During earlier epochs, when the ancient worldview was still prevalent, intellectual Christians used reason not only to formulate their belief but also to argue for it against the prevalent non-Christian views of the time. Many of the early Christian fathers were educated in Greek philosophy. This led to the rise of Christian philosophy - especially of the Augustinian (derived from Platonic philosophy) and Thomist (referring to Thomas Aquinas and derived from Aristotelian philosophy) varieties. With the rise of science - the rational-empirical study of things which requires physical proof - it became clear that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. But the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), himself a Christian, argued that there are certain limits to pure reason - that is, to what extent pure reason can arrive at real (empirical) knowledge [2]. And this allows for faith to exist next to reason. Although we could rationally argue for our faith, we will never be able to prove it in any scientific sense.
For the intellectual Christian, it is nonetheless important to find a rational basis for his or her faith. They do not have a problem to accept the basic scientific views about the world, although they reject the view that science has (or will ever have) all the answers. We find these Christians - mostly Christian philosophers and theologians - often in debates with atheists. They try to show that Christianity is compatible with the scientific worldview. They try to convince people in the wider public space about the viability of present-day Christianity. And we do find that some intellectuals, struggling to reconcile the Christian belief in which they were brought up with the scientific worldview (or post-modern worldview for that matter), eventually settles for some form of that belief to which they can adhere to.
Since "belief" is in some sense the balance between faith and reason, these Christians end up with a form of intellectual belief. They are able to reconcile their Christian views with the current scientific worldview, but their focus on reason often draw them away from any true experimental faith. In this regard they experience a problem in their desire to make a difference, namely that convincing people intellectually is not enough to bring them to faith in God; if people do not see the practical experience of Christian living, they will not easily commit to it. Although the reasonableness of the Christian faith is important to bring people to that faith, it is not enough - what is also needed is the experience of faith in a personal and powerful way.
A reasonable faith
It seems that the most rewarding form of Christian life is when faith and reason are both fully part of our lives. It is not only rewarding in the sense that such a person can experience the joy of practical faith in the framework of intellectual integrity but also in the sense that such a person could be successful in his or her existential desire to make a difference. Although we understand that all human knowledge is partial and temporary, we also know that people's intellect requires convincing them of the trustworthiness of the Christian faith. At the same time, their spiritual needs require a grounding in practical faith. But how is this balance accomplished in us?
During the modernist epoch, some thinkers not only expressed dismay at the over-accentuation of reason but also argued for some synthesis between opposites. One can think of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who expressed his rejection of the non-existentialist reason-dominated state-Christianity of his time in a powerful way. He proposed a synthesis of the "Apollonian" (rational) and "Dionysian" (non-rational, unconscious, including intuition). Nietzsche accentuated the instinctive drives within the framework of the "Dionysian"; it is passion that drives this synthesis. Later Carl Jung (1875-1961) also formulated his theories on the synthesis of "consciousness" (rational) and "unconsciousness" (non-rational, including intuition). It is interesting that these men saw themselves as philosopher/scientist-psychologists. This shows their deep conviction that the intellect should be integrated with the more basic aspects of our existence, leading to "wisdom" (Nietzsche) or a "deeper consciousness"/an integrated self (Jung) [3].
These insights are valuable to Christian living. Both the intellect and the deeper non-rational faculties should be integrated to form a "complete" person. Reason and intuition (faith is intuitive trust) are not disconnected faculties - they are interconnected in a fundamental way so that their development and integration into a balanced harmony forms part of the process of spiritual growth. Their interconnectedness is clearly manifested in Christian life - our rational arguments about God are grounded in the intuitive trust in God's supernatural revelation in Scripture and in Jesus Christ, whereas our intuitive experience of God is grounded in our rational notions about God's existence and His workings in humans. It is only when both the intellect and the inner intuitive experience of God are synthesized, that the ideal of the Christian who is both "wise" and "spiritual" could be realized. It is only when the church accentuate both the practical experience of existential faith as well as intellectual excellence that it will have a real and lasting impact on society.
The desire to make a difference, the passion to be useful to God, should be present if we want to grow towards wholeness - this brings value and meaning to our lives. In each of us, this passion manifests itself in a different vocation, leading us along different routes. The details of the route to wholeness differ for everyone - no two persons follow the same route. It is a lifelong journey, which is never fully accomplished. There could be times when the apparent conflict between faith and reason will lead one into the dark valley of doubt. It is important, however, to keep the practical experience of faith alive. It implies that one should keep praying - even when one feels no desire to do so. This kindles the flame of faith - even in the darkest hours of the intellectual struggle about one's faith. During this time we gain insights (maybe some metaphor that comes to mind will be of value) that enable us to overcome. With these insights we can sensibly integrate our faith with our reasoning, allowing the process of growth to proceed.
With intellectual growth comes freedom from all the many rules and regulations of legalistic faith, but this freedom is contained within the boundaries of a spiritual relationship with God. With spiritual growth comes the deeply personal intuitive knowledge of God that enables us to overcome and be victorious in all circumstances. As we develop our own perspectives, the potential for conflict with long-held communal views will force us to involve others in our own process of growth - some will resist change, but others will accompany us on the journey.
With time each one of us should develop into "spiritual-wise" persons who could contribute in a unique and special way to the growth of the Christian community where we are active. In this way, we would follow in the footsteps of many others whose lives and wisdom had an impact on our own. Eventually, we will come to enjoy the pure experience of the Christ-like life in the fullest sense of the word.
Sources
[1] Pardi, Paul F. 2010. "Kierkegaard and the Modern Religious Mind". On the internet: http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2010/12/29/Kierkegaard-and-the-Modern-Religious-Mind.aspx. This essay forms part of a series on faith and reason, focusing on the existentialist perspective.
[2] Ward, A. 2006. Kant. The Three Critiques. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ward gives a good overview of the Kantian perspective - if one does not want to read Kant himself, which is of course preferable.
[3] Nietzsche and Jung. 1999. Sailing a Deeper Night. Contemporary Existentialism, Vol 3. New York: Peter Lang. p 50. This is one of the best books that I have read on Nietzsche and his influence on Jung.
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud
www.wmcloud.blogspot.com
This article was followed by a debate between Willie Mc Loud and Cornelis Malan (MA Philosophy) from Southern Evangelical Seminary in the US) on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com.
to integrate the practical experience of their faith
with the prevalent intellectual perspective of the world.
Since the early days of Christianity, there were two clearly identifiable streams present, namely those who practised an essentially existentialist faith and those who accentuated the reasonable aspect of their belief. The first group had their roots in the early Jewish church and accentuated a practical intimate experience with God. The second had its roots in the Greek, especially Platonic, philosophy and used a more rational approach towards believing. To this day these currents are visible in Christianity. Today, more than before, it is a great challenge for Christians to integrate their faith with reason. How could they accomplish this? In this essay, I discuss the possibilities for doing so.
An existentialist faith
What is existentialist faith? It a trust in God which is practised and experienced in all aspects of daily life. This faith normally flows from a particular commitment to God. For such believers, this is a way of life - spirituality is at the centre of their whole existence. For them, it makes little sense to speak about spirituality if you do not experience it. The heart of spirituality is experience - the experience of God and his presence in a very intimate, intuitive way. This practical experience of Christian living is described by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1955), who accentuated his existential faith - at a time when rationality was overshadowing all other aspects of human life. From an existentialist point of view, science will never be able to give final answers. All knowledge is provisional - but faith is grounded in God.
This existential faith includes the desire to make a difference (it is, in fact, a very basic human desire). In a Christian context, this manifests itself primarily as the desire to bring others to faith in Christ. To share one's experience and motivate others to also commit themselves to God. Although there is a way in which this could be done on a purely existential level, these believers typically find themselves confronted by a barrier - most people do not easily believe if they are not convinced. They must believe that the Biblical message is trustworthy (see Paul's writings in this regard in Romans 10:14; 1 Tim. 1:15; also Mark 4:12). And to be convinced - especially in the present scientific era that we live in - these Christians need to argue, to use reason, to convince others. Although they ground their faith in an existential relation with God, they need reason to bring others to a similar faith. Like Paul, when he argued with the Greek philosophers in Athens.
Since most of these existential believers do not accentuate reason - for them it is not really important what science thinks - this aspect of their humanness is not very well developed. Having feelings of uncertainty result in them seeing the world around them, which operates for the most part according to reason, as a threat - even as a danger. To reinforce their faith, to guard their views against arguments that they are not able to answer, these believers use all sorts of rules and laws to protect themselves and their community against the outside world - which often results in them leading very legalistic lives. And this strategy is indeed very effective in protecting them against arguments from atheistic thinkers like Richard Dawkins - they do not read such books or watch movies [1].
But this strategy is not particularly successful in convincing other people to commit to such an existential faith. For outsiders, their arguments are typically not convincing enough and the legalistic practice of their faith pushes them away. For these reasons such groups normally decline numerically in a scientifically oriented world. In those parts of society where people are not really well educated, a strategy of promoting existential faith through, for example, "signs and wonders", could still yield good results. But this is becoming an ever smaller part of society. Another strategy, one born of desperation, is to work and pray for a religious revival which is probably the most dramatic expression of existential faith. This is surely a good ideal, but these are very scarce nowadays.
An intellectual belief
What is "intellectual belief"? This is a set of religious convictions which grow out of intellectual reasoning. During earlier epochs, when the ancient worldview was still prevalent, intellectual Christians used reason not only to formulate their belief but also to argue for it against the prevalent non-Christian views of the time. Many of the early Christian fathers were educated in Greek philosophy. This led to the rise of Christian philosophy - especially of the Augustinian (derived from Platonic philosophy) and Thomist (referring to Thomas Aquinas and derived from Aristotelian philosophy) varieties. With the rise of science - the rational-empirical study of things which requires physical proof - it became clear that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. But the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), himself a Christian, argued that there are certain limits to pure reason - that is, to what extent pure reason can arrive at real (empirical) knowledge [2]. And this allows for faith to exist next to reason. Although we could rationally argue for our faith, we will never be able to prove it in any scientific sense.
For the intellectual Christian, it is nonetheless important to find a rational basis for his or her faith. They do not have a problem to accept the basic scientific views about the world, although they reject the view that science has (or will ever have) all the answers. We find these Christians - mostly Christian philosophers and theologians - often in debates with atheists. They try to show that Christianity is compatible with the scientific worldview. They try to convince people in the wider public space about the viability of present-day Christianity. And we do find that some intellectuals, struggling to reconcile the Christian belief in which they were brought up with the scientific worldview (or post-modern worldview for that matter), eventually settles for some form of that belief to which they can adhere to.
Since "belief" is in some sense the balance between faith and reason, these Christians end up with a form of intellectual belief. They are able to reconcile their Christian views with the current scientific worldview, but their focus on reason often draw them away from any true experimental faith. In this regard they experience a problem in their desire to make a difference, namely that convincing people intellectually is not enough to bring them to faith in God; if people do not see the practical experience of Christian living, they will not easily commit to it. Although the reasonableness of the Christian faith is important to bring people to that faith, it is not enough - what is also needed is the experience of faith in a personal and powerful way.
A reasonable faith
It seems that the most rewarding form of Christian life is when faith and reason are both fully part of our lives. It is not only rewarding in the sense that such a person can experience the joy of practical faith in the framework of intellectual integrity but also in the sense that such a person could be successful in his or her existential desire to make a difference. Although we understand that all human knowledge is partial and temporary, we also know that people's intellect requires convincing them of the trustworthiness of the Christian faith. At the same time, their spiritual needs require a grounding in practical faith. But how is this balance accomplished in us?
During the modernist epoch, some thinkers not only expressed dismay at the over-accentuation of reason but also argued for some synthesis between opposites. One can think of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who expressed his rejection of the non-existentialist reason-dominated state-Christianity of his time in a powerful way. He proposed a synthesis of the "Apollonian" (rational) and "Dionysian" (non-rational, unconscious, including intuition). Nietzsche accentuated the instinctive drives within the framework of the "Dionysian"; it is passion that drives this synthesis. Later Carl Jung (1875-1961) also formulated his theories on the synthesis of "consciousness" (rational) and "unconsciousness" (non-rational, including intuition). It is interesting that these men saw themselves as philosopher/scientist-psychologists. This shows their deep conviction that the intellect should be integrated with the more basic aspects of our existence, leading to "wisdom" (Nietzsche) or a "deeper consciousness"/an integrated self (Jung) [3].
These insights are valuable to Christian living. Both the intellect and the deeper non-rational faculties should be integrated to form a "complete" person. Reason and intuition (faith is intuitive trust) are not disconnected faculties - they are interconnected in a fundamental way so that their development and integration into a balanced harmony forms part of the process of spiritual growth. Their interconnectedness is clearly manifested in Christian life - our rational arguments about God are grounded in the intuitive trust in God's supernatural revelation in Scripture and in Jesus Christ, whereas our intuitive experience of God is grounded in our rational notions about God's existence and His workings in humans. It is only when both the intellect and the inner intuitive experience of God are synthesized, that the ideal of the Christian who is both "wise" and "spiritual" could be realized. It is only when the church accentuate both the practical experience of existential faith as well as intellectual excellence that it will have a real and lasting impact on society.
The desire to make a difference, the passion to be useful to God, should be present if we want to grow towards wholeness - this brings value and meaning to our lives. In each of us, this passion manifests itself in a different vocation, leading us along different routes. The details of the route to wholeness differ for everyone - no two persons follow the same route. It is a lifelong journey, which is never fully accomplished. There could be times when the apparent conflict between faith and reason will lead one into the dark valley of doubt. It is important, however, to keep the practical experience of faith alive. It implies that one should keep praying - even when one feels no desire to do so. This kindles the flame of faith - even in the darkest hours of the intellectual struggle about one's faith. During this time we gain insights (maybe some metaphor that comes to mind will be of value) that enable us to overcome. With these insights we can sensibly integrate our faith with our reasoning, allowing the process of growth to proceed.
With intellectual growth comes freedom from all the many rules and regulations of legalistic faith, but this freedom is contained within the boundaries of a spiritual relationship with God. With spiritual growth comes the deeply personal intuitive knowledge of God that enables us to overcome and be victorious in all circumstances. As we develop our own perspectives, the potential for conflict with long-held communal views will force us to involve others in our own process of growth - some will resist change, but others will accompany us on the journey.
With time each one of us should develop into "spiritual-wise" persons who could contribute in a unique and special way to the growth of the Christian community where we are active. In this way, we would follow in the footsteps of many others whose lives and wisdom had an impact on our own. Eventually, we will come to enjoy the pure experience of the Christ-like life in the fullest sense of the word.
Sources
[1] Pardi, Paul F. 2010. "Kierkegaard and the Modern Religious Mind". On the internet: http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2010/12/29/Kierkegaard-and-the-Modern-Religious-Mind.aspx. This essay forms part of a series on faith and reason, focusing on the existentialist perspective.
[2] Ward, A. 2006. Kant. The Three Critiques. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ward gives a good overview of the Kantian perspective - if one does not want to read Kant himself, which is of course preferable.
[3] Nietzsche and Jung. 1999. Sailing a Deeper Night. Contemporary Existentialism, Vol 3. New York: Peter Lang. p 50. This is one of the best books that I have read on Nietzsche and his influence on Jung.
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud
www.wmcloud.blogspot.com
This article was followed by a debate between Willie Mc Loud and Cornelis Malan (MA Philosophy) from Southern Evangelical Seminary in the US) on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)