Shawn, this is a fascinating read. I always appreciate your willingness to think out loud and challenge the rigid structures of faith.
Your Oxford story and subsequent list highlight a really important semantic issue, though. You mentioned the difference between credo (I believe) and spero (I hope/wish). While I respect the humility of not wanting to claim absolute scientific certainty (scio), I think your use of spero accidentally undermines the very convictions you hold dear.
In a Christian context, hope isn't a synonym for a wish; it’s the center of our experience. It is the confident anticipation of the plan of salvation, the resurrection, and Christ’s return.
When you frame your bedrock beliefs as "I hope this is true," it introduces an element of deep ambivalence. It shifts the tone from certainty to uncertainty. If you had said, "My hope is IN the Triune God... My hope is IN the resurrection," I would be right there with you. That is the language of faith navigating academia.
But saying "I hope Jesus really rose physically" sounds like you're harboring deep skepticism. I think that’s why your Chinese and German friends looked at you with befuddlement. They didn't need Enlightenment-style "indubitable certainty," but they did need to see a pastoral figure whose anchor was firmly cast into something.
You have a beautiful list of convictions here. Why choose to frame them with the language of uncertainty when they clearly carry so much weight for you?
Cindy, thank you so much for your feedback. I greatly respect both you and your perspective here. What you've shared is very helpful. If I gave the impression that I had deep ambivalence or skepticism about the hopes/claims I made, that was not my intention at all. As I said in the piece, in addition to "hoping" that these ideas are true, I do "also have a fair degree of confidence that they do correspond to the reality of the universe." Even in what I shared with the two at Oxford, I said that I believe in Christianity "as much" because I want it to be true as I "know" it's true.
What I'm mainly pushing back against in this piece, and in my thinking in general, is the type of "indubitable certainty" that seems to characterize a lot of modern Christianity. Such a version of "faith" often finds any degree of uncertainty to be hostile to genuine faith. It also seems to insist that anyone who is committed to faith on grounds other than intellectual and propositional certainty (e.g., desire, beauty, hope, etc.) has an inferior and transient form of faith that won't withstand adversity. But I am partially arguing that "desire" is every bit as much a legitimate basis for faith as propositional certainty.
I also appreciate your feedback on "hope," though I'd probably submit that there are different "types" of hope that are present both within the biblical story as well as throughout Christian history.
Thanks again for your feedback! I love the opportunity to dialogue.
Shawn, this is a fascinating read. I always appreciate your willingness to think out loud and challenge the rigid structures of faith.
Your Oxford story and subsequent list highlight a really important semantic issue, though. You mentioned the difference between credo (I believe) and spero (I hope/wish). While I respect the humility of not wanting to claim absolute scientific certainty (scio), I think your use of spero accidentally undermines the very convictions you hold dear.
In a Christian context, hope isn't a synonym for a wish; it’s the center of our experience. It is the confident anticipation of the plan of salvation, the resurrection, and Christ’s return.
When you frame your bedrock beliefs as "I hope this is true," it introduces an element of deep ambivalence. It shifts the tone from certainty to uncertainty. If you had said, "My hope is IN the Triune God... My hope is IN the resurrection," I would be right there with you. That is the language of faith navigating academia.
But saying "I hope Jesus really rose physically" sounds like you're harboring deep skepticism. I think that’s why your Chinese and German friends looked at you with befuddlement. They didn't need Enlightenment-style "indubitable certainty," but they did need to see a pastoral figure whose anchor was firmly cast into something.
You have a beautiful list of convictions here. Why choose to frame them with the language of uncertainty when they clearly carry so much weight for you?
Cindy, thank you so much for your feedback. I greatly respect both you and your perspective here. What you've shared is very helpful. If I gave the impression that I had deep ambivalence or skepticism about the hopes/claims I made, that was not my intention at all. As I said in the piece, in addition to "hoping" that these ideas are true, I do "also have a fair degree of confidence that they do correspond to the reality of the universe." Even in what I shared with the two at Oxford, I said that I believe in Christianity "as much" because I want it to be true as I "know" it's true.
What I'm mainly pushing back against in this piece, and in my thinking in general, is the type of "indubitable certainty" that seems to characterize a lot of modern Christianity. Such a version of "faith" often finds any degree of uncertainty to be hostile to genuine faith. It also seems to insist that anyone who is committed to faith on grounds other than intellectual and propositional certainty (e.g., desire, beauty, hope, etc.) has an inferior and transient form of faith that won't withstand adversity. But I am partially arguing that "desire" is every bit as much a legitimate basis for faith as propositional certainty.
I also appreciate your feedback on "hope," though I'd probably submit that there are different "types" of hope that are present both within the biblical story as well as throughout Christian history.
Thanks again for your feedback! I love the opportunity to dialogue.
I am more than hopeful about all these things.