If you haven’t seen the movie “Inception”, do yourself a favor and watch it. It’s premise? That an idea planted in the deepest part of the subconscious would become an overarching obsession or theme which would manifest itself in an all consuming fashion within the one whom has received the inception of that idea. It further begs the question of reality and the depth of the human mind, and the layers of human cognition.
“Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream?” – Edgar Allen Poe
When I first watched the movie, I wasn’t quite sure what to do with it. It seemed to me, in light of apathetic doctrine, that abstract conceptions deep within the confines of the mind did little to motivate action. Case and point, it has been my personal experience that the cognitive truths of the gospel do very little to motivate or create change within an individual (myself included). When I peer into my soul I find that same man (or child) that resided within me abideth still post-conversion. Is the progression in my life one of spiritual sanctification, or physical and sociological progression of maturity that accompanies the experience of every man? Far be it from me to marginalize the Spirit’s work within the confessing believer, but my conclusion at the time was that the cognitive Gospel made scarce few practitioners of the Christian life.
Conclusion: Ideology had little or no consequence – therefore the premise of “Conception” was over stated.
If the most central and key component of the Christian faith, “the gospel” did little to motivate adherence to its principles, than all ideology must be useless.
I have since felt quite differently about the powerlessness of ideas. I have recanted much of my sweeping generalizations and vilification of the tradition under which I have been nurtured into faith. My oedipal desire of slaying that which has created my spiritual construct is beginning to subside.
I came to a clinching conviction while sitting in class “The Practice of a Generous Orthodoxy.” While unpacking the ways in which a generous orthodoxy is applied I began to probe for areas where reservation and apprehension was pulling the reigns upon my heart which longed to embrace the single holy catholic and apostolic church and recant of a factious, hubris, pseudo practice of faith. In that moment I was given a glaring illustration:
A good friend of mine has high esteem for the nation of Israel. His eschatological views make the state of Israel of utmost importance to the outcome of this world. I once shared similar views, but have since changed my stance drastically (that is another story for another time). I had recently come under deep conviction that the unlimited support American Evangelicals (monetarily and politically) have given to the nation of Israel has undermined the gospel, and has in fact perpetuated racism and injustice against Palestinians (especially Palestinian Christians). The way in which I would later go about broaching this subject, I fear, has greatly jeopardized that friendship.
I have not found a way to relinquish the importance of what I perceive to be an injustice while remaining generous to my brother in Christ.
So then, ideology does in fact determine the behaviors and paths of one’s life.
Thoughts and beliefs have consequences. Theology has consequences.
To further illustrate I turn to an extreme example of conceptual motivation. This is a concept that has been highly embraced by the masses, without ever receiving critical reflection upon its implications.
In the concept of Karma “humans have free will to choose good or evil and suffer the consequences, which require the will of God to implement karma's consequences.” I do not want to reduce an ancient religious concept to “My name is Earl,” but in essence, “do good things, and good things will happen to you. Do bad things and bad things will happen to you.” Seems innocent enough, right?
Consider that when something bad happens to a person, the ideology of Karma suggests that said person has done something to deserve the despair being brought upon them. What do we say to the victim of abuse, to the childless couple, to the man born blind? That in a past life their actions caused the infliction they now endure? Karma causes us to look with suspicion upon any person in suffering, an antithetical view of the restorative social implications of the Gospel of Christ. This ideology perpetuated the use of the Caste system for centuries in India, yet it is espoused from the lips of Hollywood celebrities and new age adherers without critique.
This is where I am stumped. Given that ideas have consequences, must a practice of a generous orthodoxy be abandoned and the pursuit of unity be forfeited because hermeneutical purity is asserted while moral outcome is ignored? Ideology, belief, faith, theology… they affect the way in which we as individuals and as a corporate body of believers engage the world around us. How can we abandon the process of theologizing and give the old “nod nod, wink wink” to each denominations doctrinal conviction?
I have a series of solutions to the presented problem, but I am not sure they are cohesive enough to address the very difficult dilemma I have approached. Undisputedly, generous orthodoxy is no easy and simple task. I do not submit that we abandon our current traditions in order to join in a watered down “theological jambalaya” as one friend of mine has called it. I guess a good beginning place would be to acknowledge the strengths of denominationalism.
Denominations are much more like personalities than they are theological camps. Baptist, as much as it has theological distinction, has social distinction and unique personality. Presbyterian, as much as it has theological distinction, has social distinction and unique personality. And so on…
In composing the realization that ideology has consequences, I must ask whether or not the way in which we arrive at theological convictions concerning that nature of God may in fact need to be challenged? The method that I see most heavily used in my own circle is that certain succinct creedal statements becoming the pinnacle of theology, upon which biblical truth can be further extrapolated. Perhaps, in following these rabbit holes deeper and deeper we make it easier for ourselves to come to conclusions that are, dare I be so bold as to say, bizarre?
So once more, I come to the conviction that a center of orthodoxy must be established (that which has been held by the church at all times). I suggest that from this dogmatic core of absolution we tread with humility into the realm of doctrine and preference. We do not forsake our traditions (as I am in a habit of doing), but rather we glean from those whose traditions have much to teach us. Starting with the center and working our way out means that these central convictions make their way into the deepest regions of our “sub-conscious”. They bury themselves into the caverns of our hearts, and from them we become practitioners of those who profess faith in Christ, and in so doing live in a diverse unity with our brethren.
The power of the gospel is not ideology and cognitive/individual acceptance thereof. The power of the gospel is a flesh and blood reality that is being manifest in this world. Ideas have consequences. May the inception of the gospel within your soul transcend explanation and overtake your life in its consequence.
