convictions...

as of late, i have been mulling over how to get people to talk about their convictions...not in a dominating "we vs. them" kind of way...but a way in which one may discover why on earth the present convictions are so strong...

for instance - take into consideration my conviction that peanut butter on wheat is best experienced with these additions: onion - or smashed up lays potato chips...why? thank you for asking...

my first experience with peanut butter and onion was the summer of 1991...i was living in a state park, working as a missionary for the southern baptist church...i lived largely among retired folk who roamed the country in airstream trailers...all summer long nancy tried to get me to try it...i finally relented three days before i was to leave...it was sort of a giving in to her because she had been so supportive of me all summer long...(this was my way of paying her back - trying her lunatic preference of pb/o)...seriously, she was thrilled...

as i took the first bite, i am sure that you can imagine my disdain...it had never sounded good to me...those two combined together made me throw up a little bit in my throat when i thought about it...my natural prejudice - born from my preconceived convictions of the two tastes independently - could not sort out how someone might like this...until i experienced it...

i feel certain that calvin's experience of critiquing the catholic church was not because of some tradition that demanded he do so...he did not get a phrase like "infallibility" and scream it over and over again to the catholic church...he studied...he talked...he fought...he prayed...he fellowshipped...he wrote two institutes by the age of 28...he was busy trying to help us with interpreting convictions...more or less, the protestant break off was convinced of its liberties found in grace...the new hermeneutic...one that calvin used throughout much of his writings - because of his strong conviction - which was through his experience...

i know...postmodern thought is killing us isn't it?...it's because we are stuck using enlightenment language as we try to evaluate experience - which is hardly measurable according to a scale...it's easier to hold experience up to a law and measure it that way...unless your experience is negated by the law...

no one can convince me that pb and o is distasteful... it's according to monica...thank god there is no sola pbj statements out there...just as no one can tell me my convictions are not valid and vice versa...this "according to" needs to be reevaluated..."according to mark"..."according to calvin"..."according to whoever is sharing their conviction at the time"...why is this so hard?

i think it is hard mostly because convictions are often based on power...the majority...to be convinced of something against the majority is not fun...it is painful...it is disturbing...it sometimes isolates you...but if "according to" is really something, don't be afraid to walk humbly with it...explore why you are "convicted" about it...test it against the traditions...explore the traditions to see why they were convinced of their convictions...it's endless and tiring...

i'm tired right now because then there is the seperation of "according to conservatives" and "according to liberals" and we are right back at the beginning of not being able to discuss our convictions...the powers are equal in strength and no one is yielding...

i'm convicted about that right now...