Earlier today, I was fortunate enough to hear one of Mercer’s most distinguished faculty members, Dr. Judson Mitcham, read selections of his poetry. Let me say up front that I am normally not a poetry enthusiast—I much prefer prose, as poetry will either make me sleepy or send me to groaning. Dr. Mitcham, on the other hand, was a pleasure to hear.
The poems that he read dealt with simple themes, particularly love and the inevitability of age, but had, as undertones, elements of Christian theology and philosophy. Many of his poems dealt with simple people in simple situations, guided by their faith. One such poem dealt with Dr. Mitcham, forced to endure the proselytizing of the zealous woman in the seat next to him. This poem raised an interesting question about the requirements a faithful man. Should he quietly listen to the sermon, not acknowledging that he is, in fact, a member of that faith? Should he wholeheartedly agree, join in, and attempt to convert everyone on the plane? Or should he do as Dr. Mitcham did—privately reaffirm his faith, defuse the situation with a joke (the Pope and President Nixon are on a boat. It didn’t go over well, apparently), and resume reading his magazine?
This might be reading too much into what was an ordinary story, but it did get me thinking, especially in light of Andaika’s paper in class today—to what extent does action have to take the place of thought? How does a religious man have to act? Does he have to prove he’s religious, or is it enough to act in the appropriate manner (be that aggression, peace, compassion, etc) at the right time? When you meet someone of your faith, but you don’t really want to interact with them, what, if any, are your obligations?
I think that some beliefs do not have to be acted on. For instance; say you believe in a trinitarian god, you probably would not act any differently than someone who believed in a unitarian god (provided you both are Christian). Both of you, if you followed what you religion said, would not lie, would not steal, would be kind to those around you, would attend church, help those less fortunate than yourself, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe important thing to note is that several of the things that Christianity promotes as 'right action' are things that nonreligious people would do as well, for various reasons, such as being kind to other people. The differences in how a religious person has to act and how a nonreligious person acts varies according to the religion. For instances some religions require their members to actively recruit new members. Some other differences are: many religious people do not get divorced when a nonreligious person would, they have more children because of a lack of birth control, they send their children to religious private schools, they spend every Sunday in church, they give money to their church, they attend church classes, etc.
If someone is religious and not a part of a formal religion, for example they say they believe in god(s) but do not do any of the activities of a religious person mentioned above (that a nonreligious person would not do). Then they might not act any differently than a nonreligious person would. This person does however have to acknowledge that there are many people out there that would say that they are not a real Christian, or whatever other religion, because they abstain from the formalities associated with the religion.
Gah. That's...in depth. Makes a lot of sense, though.
ReplyDelete