What I Am, and What I Am Not

I feel serious misunderstandings over what people think I want to do in Religious Studies. This is spread across the board from family to friends.

First, I am not in Philosophy. We barely discuss philosophy in my courses. The only time we talk about philosophy is when it has something to do with the historical context of an ancient text. Having said this, I am quite interested in certain specific branches of philosophy - namely epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge: what is knowledge, how do we have it, how is it justified, issues like that.

Second, I am in Religious Studies, not theology, not divinity, not seminary. I study religion at a public school which claims no religious allegiance. The staff are incredibly good at this; I have yet to have professor who has an axe to grind for or against a certain religion. Being in a religious studies faculty, and with my particular focus the New Testament texts, we do not talk about what God actually is like. We talk about what ancient authors said God was like. Our goal is to describe, not impose. Being the public institution that UBC is, and with the aim at public dialogue, it is much easier to talk about what others have said than what actually is the truth to be believed and followed by all. I, for what it's worth, am quite comfortable with this approach.

Third, I am a historically minded examiner of ancient literature. My goal, academically, is to understand a text in light of its social and historical context. Now, I am not saying this is the only way to read a text, but it is the one I am most interested in and pursue academically. Of course, you can examine a text in its canonical context, in its reception in a modern context, in its perception by a reading community, in an allegorical context, and a whole slew of other ways to approach a text. But as I have said, the socio-historical method is where my interest lies.

Fourth, I am not out to prove or disprove my faith. I am greatly interested in the origins of my Christian faith, but I don't think my agenda is to prove it to anyone (or to myself!). I can not pull myself away from the figure of Jesus, and I think he has a lot to tell us about who God is, and what God is all up to. However, I approach this question in a rather open manner, exploring all sorts of terrain - some new, some old. What follows is that people sometimes marshal me to be the 'debater', or the 'brain' who can convince people of the truth of Christianity. Unfortunately, I'm not really all for that. Besides the fact that my positions on some issues would likely severely agitate those who steer me to such tasks, I don't think Christianity can be nicely and neatly 'proved'. I cannot prove God exists, I cannot prove what kind of person Jesus was, or that Jesus is the key to who God is, or that the Bible is authoritative for Christian faith and life (in what way exactly is a topic for another post, suffice it to say that I don't even have a good answer yet). No, I can't prove any of these. I have reasons to believe them, but they don't constitute mathematical proof. And I am always ready to re-examine my positions and perhaps reformulate my thought. I am quite convinced of the limitations of my thought, as well as the limitations of human thought (a highly ironic statement, yes). None of us is perfect, and none of us sees perfectly. How can I then turn around to someone and try and prove something to be certainly true? If someone wants to explore the Christian faith, then I am all for it. If they want to ask me what I believe, they are more than welcome to. But do not expect me to be a great apologist. I'll have nothing of that intellectual arrogance.

Hopefully this has cleared up a few things about myself and my involvement with religious studies. I hope the fires this post undoubtedly lit will be overcome by the grace and love of those who read it.

Peace be with you all.