weird convoluted thought of last night:

if there is continuing revelation… can there be a revelation of non-revelation?

… i’ve been reading too much postmodern theory, i think.

but it makes sense to me in this weird way… i know of many people who have sought and not found. they’ve found something, but not jesus as the way the truth and the light. i’m not sure where i am in there– it shifts. but especially in reading the spiral staircase by karen armstrong, and watching her struggle with trying to find god and then letting go and THEN finding god… and my experience with twisting god into all of the demons of my childhood… and my seeking sometimes going smack into that… there is this idea that if you just approach it rightly and try hard enough… jesus will be there.

but if jesus keeps being the damage of our childhoods… why is it so important to fight it? it seems to come to a victim-blaming sort of thing… “sure, people acting in the name of christ did terrible things to you, but you still won’t be okay until you believe…”

why can’t revelation be something else– something that doesn’t look like revelation at all?

… people keep responding to my questions like that with answers that still sound like, “it doesn’t have to be christ… but people need more christ/it will eventually be christ/quakerism cannot exist without christ.”

i’m so new to this particular brand of faith. and it feels right, even though i struggle daily with christ and what that even means. it feels right because of the love and because of the way of approaching god. but if the christ-piece doesn’t fit in just right, maybe i’m not actually a quaker… and if then… what is there for me? there is nowhere else remotely like quakerism– if the doors are shut because my world was framed in such a way that christ confuses me… what then?

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. 1.

    this is awesome.

    Comment by puck — February 23, 2007 @ 8:07 pm

    I hope, cubby, that you make an emotional distinction between “christianity” and Christ. “Christianity” is what battered you. But Christ got battered by the dominant religion of his time and place the way you got battered by yours (and a heckuva lot worse, since it cost him his life), which makes him a bit of a fellow sufferer, no?

    Leaving the question of “believing” aside — I think it’s the wrong way to go at it anyway — how do you relate to such stuff as Christ telling the religious leaders, “Woe to you, because you lay on people burdens that are hard to bear” –?

    Comment by Marshall Massey (Iowa YM [C]) — February 24, 2007 @ 6:12 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: