We discussed a little bit today in class about the significance of faith, especially in respect to Anne Bradstreet's works. One of the things that strikes me the most about Bradstreet's works is the evidence of her desire to be faithful to God. She seems able to justify the burning of her house and the death of her granchild by coming to terms with the fact that God is ultimately in control of all things. Here's a line from the introduction to Bradstreet's poems:
"Although she ultimately capitulates to a supreme being... it is the tension between her desire for earthly happiness and her effort to accept God's will that makes these poems especially powerful."
Two words that particularly stand out to me here are ultimately and effort. It seems that Bradstreet experiences inner struggles in her journey to ultimately accept God's will. It does not appear to come naturally for Bradstreet to trust her life and possessions in the hands of another, and that is why the use of effort strikes me. Bradstreet has to work to trust God.
Which brings me to my point. Where is the line between faith and doubt? Here is a line from a book called "The Case for Faith," by Lee Strobel, dealing with faith and doubt:
"I knew my fundamental trust in Jesus would be stronger, surer, more confident, more steadfast because it had been refined through the purifying fire of doubt. In the end, despite questions, challenges, and obstacles, my faith would not just survive, but it would thrive." (244)
Here's another line regarding faith as a choice:
"It's [faith] a choice we must make without having all the complete information we'd like to have." (237)
So, dealing with the first quote, does it seem that Bradstreet's faith is being refined by the trials that she experiences? I would argue that, yes, her faith is strengthened, because at the end of both poems dealing with loss, she ultimately chooses to put her trust in God's plan. Dealing with the second quote, it seems that, regardless of her ultimate faith, she still questions God: "And to my God my heart did cry to straighten me in my Distress." This, to me, seems like a cry from Bradstreet's heart to God asking, "Why!?" But, again, she ultimately resolves to trust God: "I blest his grace that gave and took." It appears that, despite unanswered questions, Bradstreet is choosing to still trust and rely on God, his will, and his provision.
Thoughts?
Emily T.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think that faith and doubt are like two sides of the same coin. You cannot have faith without having at least a little bit of doubt. After all, why do we have faith in something? We think that something is true or that it exists even though we do not have any concrete evidence. When we don't have any concrete evidence, we tend to doubt the belief, no matter what it is.
The amount of doubt, however, is probably different for everyone. I think that it depends on how much a certain faith in something has been emphasized in a person's semantic environment. It seems to make sense that as that faith is strengthened, the less doubt you have. However, I think that there's the minimum amount of doubt. No matter how much you strengthen you faith, it isn't possible to go past that certain point because you cannot prove that which you have faith in.
I think that Bradstreet is actually attempting to protect herself from the sorrows of life by convincing herself that everything happens for a reason, and that everything is in God's hands. She is doing this subconsciously, possibly in the darkest depths of her heart, for it is easier to construct a situation in which God is justifiably causing sorrow than to lament the possibility that an intervening God does not exist. Logically so, as one would assume a loving, omnipresent, and omnipotent deity to prevent as much sorrow as He could.
I am of the mindset that if Bradstreet had been brought up in today's society, she wouldn't have been a religious person. Due to the suffocating climate she was brought up in, her rational inclination was often overridden by faith.
Taylor Burke
Today in class, Mr. Lazarow mentioned how Anne Bradstreet's meditations and her poem to her deceased grandchild were not something she immediately penned upon her tragic loss. On the contrary, the content of her writing is one of great intellectual rationalization and thought. Anne Bradstreet came upon her conclusion to place her fate in the hands of God after carefully considering each available venue. Maybe Taylor has a point, but if you think about it...we choose to have a faith because we need something greater than us, some sort of explanation. And thus we have faith. So yes, Anne Bradstreet ULTIMATELY chose to follow God after putting in an EFFORT to understand which pieces of the puzzle were missing.
This post reminds me of one I wrote a few weeks back about the movie "Doubt" starring Meryl Streep. Streep takes her faith seriously that she does not believe in faith, but rather in her innate feelings, given to her by God. At the end of the movie, she finds herself miserable because she begins to doubt her convictions against the Father of the parish. I can't say I enjoyed the film too much.
(Sam Maliha)
I think the argument Taylor made, that Bradstreet was simply used her faith for self preservation, is one that can be used for faith in almost anything. Religion may have been created in large part for self preservation. Since it's almost too difficult to comprehend some things, whether it be the death of a loved one or the incredible suffering in the world, people need faith. I think for many people this is the only way that the world or any of its happenings can make any sense. I know this is fairly heretical to hypothesize but I think that in many ways faiths are molded to fit in a way that makes things easier. Easier to comprehend the world, easier to sleep at night, the idea I think most people have is that faith should help people. One's faith should aid them in getting through life.
It all reminded me of a story I was listening to the other day on This American Life about Reverend Carlton Pearson. Reverent Pearson was an evangelical, born again Christian preacher until he broke away from the faith and started his own church. The doctrines to which he subscribed were much less rigid and much more reminiscent of the New Testament's loving god. The fundamental ideological difference was that Reverend Pearson came to believe that one did not need to accept Christ as their savior to go to heaven. This means that followers of Non Christian religions may also be saved. In fact, Reverend Pearson believed that even atheists could achieve salvation. Long story short, he lost much of his congregation.
What I found mot interesting about the story was the reasoning that those who are a part of Pearson's congregation now gave for remaining with the Reverend. It was not out of loyalty, or because of all of the good he had done, it was because as one woman put it "I can sleep so much better now, I don't have to worry about saving everyone." Is it commonplace that people believe what they do because it makes life more bearable? It seems cynical but it seems to me that in many cases the reason that people have faith in what they do so that they can justify the world around them and just generally so that their life is easier.
(Molly Dunbar)
"I think that in many ways faiths are molded to fit in a way that makes things easier. Easier to comprehend the world, easier to sleep at night, the idea I think most people have is that faith should help people." -- Molly
"It seems cynical but it seems to me that in many cases the reason that people have faith in what they do so that they can justify the world around them and just generally so that their life is easier." -- Molly
Those are pretty general statements, but I think there is a fundamental assumption that is flawed. This assumption is that faith is easy. Of all the things in life that humans do not like to do, surrendering control is on the top of the list. Making commitments is probably pretty high on the list, too. From my personal experience, my faith has required both an attempt to surrender control over my life and an attempt to make a lasting commitment to honor and serve my Creator. I say attempt because neither is easy to do. Humans are selfish creatures, and we tend to aim to serve ourselves before serving others. We want to control our lives and the way we spend our time. The culture we live in today is all about keeping our options open, and not committing. Faith can be hard if taken seriously.
I think this is one of the reasons that Bradstreet seems to be going through a journey in each of her "loss" poems. It is difficult for her to justify the losses that she has experienced, but she ultimately chooses to surrender the control she would like to have over her life to the God that created all things. Puritans took their faith seriously, and Bradsreet certainly did, as well.
Faith can be a challenge. At its deepest level it requires surrender and commitment. We as humans are reluctant to give either.
Emily T.
Well, faith is much like the opposite of doubt. Doubt occurs when one does not have all of the facts and is unsure of the conclusions drawn from those incomplete facts. Faith is when one decides to believe in that conclusion regardless of how much or how little rational evidence there is.
Faith is powerful because it overcomes almost everything. Reason, facts, and even doubt can be defeated by simply believing, or simply by having faith. I do agree with Emily, however, that in a sense having doubts can strengthen one's faith: "I still have faith despite my doubts."
-Eric Wei
Post a Comment