So...it seems as if my last blog sparked much conversation! Most of which I wasn't expecting of course, as writers never really believe people actually READ their blogs. I find it interesting that so many different conclusions were drawn from it, from my "hatred" for seminary to dropping out of school altogether. I can assure you that neither of those are my intentions or feelings. Now, granted, I said some serious stuff (that obviously struck a cord with many of you) and though I am not here to explain myself, I do want to point out what I learned from this experience.
The first bit of knowledge comes in the form of advice from a good friend of mine: "Don't sign contracts when you're happy and don't publish blogs when you're angry."
Point taken.
The other point though (and reason for this blog entry) is what I learned about the "human filtration system," that is, how people read into and take out of what I (or someone else) writes. I'm currently taking a course in Exegetical Methods (how convenient) where one of the main points is to realize what you "bring" to the reading. It is important for us to realize that we do not read anything outside of ourselves. Our experiences, families, dislikes, hobbies, thoughts, concepts, and theology all play apart in how we take in information. It also plays a part of how we process and draw conclusions from the information we take in. I thought it was very interesting how suggestions of "leaving school" or "disliking the structure of school" came from individuals who themselves shared this same viewpoint or thought. I am not saying that this is the case for every comment or conversation by any means, but it is something that was pointed out to me. I had to realize that as a writer I have no real control over what people will ultimately take from what I write. I can only be as clear as I possibly can to communicate what it is what I feel or say. And I have found this week that writing when you are high on any type of emotion does not always guarantee the best communication. I'd say I'm sorry, but I'm not (it's my blog and I'll cry if I want to!)
Now, I can go on some tangent on how this experience caused me to struggle with reading the Word in a new way, simply because I realize from a writers prospective how things written are not always "set in stone" but (in some ways) become subject to the person doing the reading. But I think I will save that for a later blog. What I find interesting in all of this is the ability (or lack thereof) to "struggle" or to contend with things without absolutes, that is, the fight with ambiguity we often find ourselves in, and the discomfort that it brings.
Why is it that we need to hold on to absolutes? And by this I mean, why do we need to always be quick to find the answers? I find myself in the midst of a deconstruction process that I can't seem to fully articulate and yet I'm shocked to see one of two things: 1. Others who seem to have skipped this process of seminary or refuse to admit it and 2. those around me (not just at school) who wish to put a label or to clearly identify what it is that I am "going through." No, I am not dropping out of school and no, I do not have any "hatred" toward school. I actually enjoy my classes (when I'm not so frustrated that the teachers seem like they're straight out of "Charlie Brown") and I am in fact doing well in them. But that doesn't make it any easier. The fact that I seem "OK" doesn't disqualify me from the process of deconstruction of one's theology. I see it like this:
Imagine realizing that you have been spoon-fed your theology your entire life, only to be left with a strong desire for more. You are then invited to a table, yet when you sit down to a great buffet, you realize that you have no idea how to feed yourself?
That's how I feel. I find that everything I thought I knew about God was the idea of someone else (granted, our ideas and perceptions are in a way a combination of other peoples ideas, but lets not get caught up in the particulars). I feel as if the only way I can see the "God I know and serve" is through the lens of other people. I want to know God, really know Him, for myself, but I find myself ill-equipped to learn.
Seminary, in my first year of course, has a way of unveiling every God you have ever served and begs the question, "Pick one?" Well, I've realized that the gods in front of me all suck. Not that the all are just horrible, they have their good sides, but for some reason I've created gods that suit my needs and make me comfortable. Gods that fit in my form of absolutes and provide clear concise answers to my questions. Maybe in a way, that's what I expected from seminary; embracing the God that answers my questions. Instead I feel like I've been confronted with the God who asks me questions; questions I cant seem to fully understand let alone answer.
For those of you who find yourselves in the same position; keep the conversation going. There are so many students that feel the same way and have no one to talk to about it. Engage other students in the conversation, and your teachers as well. I have found (the hard way) that some teachers wish to be apart of this conversation. Don't be afraid to live without absolutes or complete answers to your questions (as Paul did) or to really say what you are feeling (as David did). Part of my reconstruction is embracing this process of deconstruction and allowing myself to, well, feel human, fragile, ill-equipped and unprepared to take on this thing called life. And to situate myself in a community of people with issues like me.
I am sure this blog makes no sense, but I am in a place where nothing really makes sense so I don't think I'll produce any sensible work anytime soon. But what I can say is that God has a way of working with things that are foolish. With that being said, I am sure He has plenty of work to do where I'm concerned.
Well Done, it was really us full! Thank you! x :)
ReplyDelete