They're like hobos -- in the best sense

So the Jehovah's Witnesses have hit our house three times in the last two weeks. My mom and I joke that they must have marked the house with a scratch on the fence or something, like the hobos do in old movies.

Not that I really have anything against JWs. They're certainly always polite. And I have to thank them, because every time they swing by and try and sell their faith to me I'm confronted with the reasons for my own faith -- Something that's easy to lose sight of.

The problem with arguing about religion with the intent to convert someone to your flavor of thinking (and why else does one argue about religion?) is that it reveals an underlying flaw in your belief: If you sincerely believe that you can win this person over with an argument, then it stands to reason that your own faith is based on an argument. And if your faith is based on an argument, not only are you faced with your own arrogance at assuming you have it all figured out, but you also have to be on the lookout, because who's to say that some bigger and better argument can't come along and convince YOU that YOU'RE "wrong"? Sounds like a pretty shaky faith to me.

One of the most life changing books I have ever read is Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell, and although the entire book is amazing, it's the first couple of chapters that were/are most influential to me. In this chapter, Rob's talking about doctrines, which are what I suppose you could call the "pillars of faith" that any religion is built on; the specific beliefs that are vital to a particular flavor of religion. I.e. Jesus Christ being born of a virgin, or that he was crucified and rose again on the third day, or that God is three distinct persons in one (the Trinity), etc etc. Rob says doctrines can be like bricks; they build on top of each other. For example, some people would say that if you don't believe in a literal, six-day creation of the world, then there's no way you can believe any of the Bible. Each doctrinal brick builds on top of another; the problem being that if one brick is removed, the whole system falls over. It's religious jenga.

And then Rob asks a question that totally changed my perspective: If we somehow found irrevocable proof that Jesus Christ was not born of a virginal Mary, but actually had an earthly father named Bob, would you stop believing and following Jesus Christ?

My answer is, of course not.

Rob's idea here is that doctrine is meant to help explain God; not to be so arrogant as to think it explains God completely. But I think the issue here is much bigger and affects all aspects of life.

Back to my answer. We find out that Jesus had a dad named Bob, and still I'd call myself a follower of Jesus. Why? Because my faith isn't based on a doctrinal wall; it's not based on an argument. I call myself a Christian not because I've got all the answers figured out, not because I know the Bible from front to back and can tell you what every little word means. but because I know how messed up I really am, and life, love, friends, movies, TV, books, songs, coffee shops, family, sexuality, and nature have all taught me just as much about God and life and people as the Bible and Sunday sermons have.

And this is a huge relief... We can totally abandon the whole attitude of "I'VE GOT A GOD AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO USE HIM!" We can acknowledge that faith is a journey, not a map. There is no need to be afraid of saying the wrong things, no need to have it all figured out, no need to "defend the faith".

I mean, really, defend the faith from what?

You only have to defend against something if you're worried that it might make you change your mind. Sounds like a pretty shaky faith to me.