I'm not *trying* to be a skeptic, but. . .

So there I was, outlining my talk for Sunday school, sure I had all the truth I was going to get this time around, and just trying to put the pieces together into some semblance of cohesion. As I outlined, I thought, “You know, I need some more discussion questions.” And I innocently began brainstorming things I could ask throughout the lesson, so it wouldn’t simply be me talking at my students for half an hour, telling them what I think. (Random side note: My students are amazing, and I love hearing their discussions. Often the thing that sticks with me the most from a class is some off-the-top-of-his/her-head remark from one of them, instead of what I’d been thinking about and studying all week.)

I try to think through my own answers to each discussion question, so I don’t end up on Sunday morning facing blank stares and the sudden realization that there is no way anyone could actually respond to what I just asked. (Oh, the things we learn from experience. . .) I was blithely jotting down said answers when this very simple query (which I wrote down in the first place) caught me by surprise:

“Whom do you believe?”

My brain whirred through the line-up of my trusted friends, family, and mentors. . . and I came up blank. There is not one person I can honestly say that I believe. As for more impersonal sources—sure, I think, say, the New York Times is fairly reliable, but if they reported something kooky, I wouldn’t be inclined to believe it simply because it was in the Times.

And, while it would be nice to say that I believe God--let’s face it, I’m much more likely to believe myself.

In fact, I realized that my only answer to the question, “Whom do you believe?” is “Me.”

That’s kind of scary.

Is that the definition of a skeptic? Or maybe just the definition of an arrogant --insert your favorite profane noun here--.

I guess what I mean about believing only myself is that, no matter how much I trust a person or a source, if what they say doesn’t line up with what I already think to be true, I discount it. Ok, sure, I could be convinced if there were, I don’t know, three other credible sources that backed them up—but I’m a bit disconcerted by the fact that my own opinions are what I consider to be the most reliable measure of what is to be believed and what is not. (And, I guess to be fair to myself, I usually do consider other people’s opinions. . . in order to decide if I agree. Yikes.)

On the other hand, if I don’t think that my reasoning skills have any value, how could I possibly even begin to try to choose whom to believe? (And what on earth did my parents (and I) just pay $10,000s for? Dining hall meals and fertilizer for our pretty green quad?)

So the million-dollar question for you guys is, whom ought we to believe?

Ok, God—check. We ought to believe God. But ought we to have someone else in our lives that we believe more than ourselves? Should we even be on our own list of whom we believe? Or is God the only one worthy be on that list? And if learning to believe God in actuality and not just theory is a life-long process, whom do we believe in the interim?

the blog is back in town

Here are some shots from Rach(j)el's rousing birthday party, made especially memorable by the first (but probably not the last) round of charades ever played at a c-group party. Bonus points to anyone who can remember (or guess!) what Andrew is trying to act out.



No, he is not acting out "Socrates."

OBVIOUSLY she's acting out "mr. Rogers." And obviously the girls got it.

Props to Aly for the sweet birthday cake!

Note the population of the couch: 2 boys, 2 girls