Whatever happened to Angst?

Maybe angst can make way for joy. That's the story of my life.

I have a friend who's a modern beatnik. I doubt he's ever been truly happy. He needs to know Christ.

I suppose that's what can happen. Unfortunately a college education has a tendency to leave you jaded about most knowledge claims, and growing up in a very Enlightenment influenced slice of the Church (i.e. Reformed folks), what you know is directly related to the confidence you feel about your faith etc., which is definately related to joy.

Makes it a bit difficult.

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Perhaps you, too, should start reading the Church Fathers. At least read St. Bernard of Clairvaux (not a Father, but a great mystic of the medieval period) and St. Athanasius. Lord willing, I will write a SIP on something like "Toward an Epistemology of the Logos." I think the Church Fathers can point us toward a more holistic and healing epistemology than anything in the West - since the West basically since Descartes is grounded in autonomy and a confidence in man's reason. But for us reason always operates within the bounds of revelation. Our being is _in_ Christ. And that's not just a metaphor - the Spirit testifies that to us. And we should be unutterably happy about that fact. Another good book is _The Pleasures of God_ by John Piper.

Have you gone to Wayne Olson's weblog yet? It's linked from mine. He's about the same age as you, preparing for grad school and majoring in classics. He knows a good bit about Hellenistic philosophy. And he has sounded the battle cry: epistemology is dead. Long live faith!

E,

I've read a good bit of Piper, including Pleasure's of God, Future Grace, and desiring God. I've also had my fair share of Clairvaux and the ancients.

Particularly I think, for the type of assurance you're talking about, is the medieval attitude toward's a more holistic & wholistic view of life and knowledge etc. I dig that stuff. I'm a big St. Francis fan.

I understand that epistemology is dead, beyond justu some ideological trace to that conclusion. Take epistemology, and the shere overwhelming number of epistemological systems leaves you stuck wondering which the heck do I choose?

Which of course, drops you back to a brute, Holy Spirit induced claim of the first question of the Heidelberg Catechism. I sure, in the dark nights of the soul that's what I cling to. But, beyond that, and what I mean is what I want to claim to know/believe/understand/whatever beyond that brute assertion of faith is just clouded and confused and uncertain.

There's the angst: the fact that we have a faith with rests in a Person, namely, the Incarnate God Christ, which is itself paradoxical; and that (faith) isn't ontologically speaking epistemological and is instead ragingly existential (not in the French sense) even with and because of the Holy Spirit testifyin; and further moving beyond that mere faith into something even beginnig to resemble an extended LIVED-faith (i.e. ethics, theology, etc.) is something darn near impossible to feel confident about. There's the angst: a faith the doesn't simply have very very very few absolute assurances, but almost in fact demands next to no absolute claims so as to keep us humble before the face of God.

now, I suppose THAT is supposed to keep me happy and at peace, but its an awful difficult catch-22 all around. But that's the point isn't it?

That's great, that's deep. But it is only when we are at war that we are at peace, and vice versa. After reading the ancients more, I feel like all epistemological certainties have been swept out under me. But I still believe in the inspiration and perspicacity of Scripture. And because we are united with Christ by faith - so our actions, inasmuch as they are righteous, are Christ's - then I realize that I'm on a pilgrimage that's going in a good direction. BTW, I like the phrase, "ragingly existential." I'll think of it later this week when I'm reading The Sickness Unto Death.