What does it MEAN to be a Christian?

[Blue Jay]

Carried over from the thread: What defines a Christian?

Andrew, I don't know how others feel but you're getting right at the heart of my question. Since you attempt to redirect things, I decided to start a new thread for this new direction.

I like how you break things down. I'll screen out your questions from the rest of your post, reformat, and list them as numbered questions. Perhaps that will help focus answers. (I hope I am still on the track you intended. )

Originally Posted by taijasi; reformatted by BJ

What does it mean to be a Christian?

1. "What VIRTUES and positive qualities define a Christian, in terms of behavior and his/her attitude & ways of approaching or dealing with the world (self, God, others)?"
2. So do some Christians attend no [church/worship] service at all?
3. Could community service be the way they worship God, and show that they love Him, His creation, and everyone in it?
4. But what do people BEHAVE like?
5. How do they regard themselves, treat each other?
6. HOW is their daily routine any different than people of other faiths, or no faith at all?

******************

Along these lines

What does it mean to be a Christian?

[Blue Jay]

Okay I'll go first.

1. "What VIRTUES and positive qualities define a Christian, in terms of behavior and his/her attitude & ways of approaching or dealing with the world (self, God, others)?"

   I don't see any; hense my question.

2. So do some Christians attend no [church/worship] service at all?

   I know quite a few people who call themselves Christian but they don't go to church, or at least not regularly. Some go for Christmas and Easter, and/or for other special events such as baptisms, weddings, and funerals, but not otherwise.

3. Could community service be the way they worship God, and show that they love Him, His creation, and everyone in it?

   Possibly. I don't know if there are people who consider this kind of thing to be a mark of their religion. I know churches that do this. I also know church-goers who do this as individuals. I also know non-religious people who do this kind of thing so it would not seem to really mark a person for being Christian. Historically, it seems to have been churches and/or well-to-do individual Christians who initiated works of charity like this. But for today--I can't tell a difference between Christians and others.

4. But what do people BEHAVE like?

   I assume you mean Christian people. That's my question. I don't see a positive difference between Christians and non-Christians.

5. How do they regard themselves, treat each other?

   A lot of Christians I know regard themselves as living more righteous lives than non-Christians. Or of being better than non-Christians in some way. But I can't see any positive difference. Hense my question.

6. HOW is their daily routine any different than people of other faiths, or no faith at all?

   Well, a lot of Christians I know have grace before meals, go to church on Sunday, and there are some things they do differently from mainstream society such as refrain from the use of make-up and jewelry and certain kinds of clothing and jobs they consider immodest or inappropriate for Christians. But I also know people who call themselves Christians who do all these things. So I am still at Square 1.

[Virtual_Cliff]

I hate to be a stickler but this is coming back to a question of what is different about Christians. But my contention is that Jesus did not primarily intend to start a new religion. He wanted to reform the practice of Judaism but he also knew that the main thrust of what he was teaching went beyond Judaism and was just as valid for gentiles. His teaching was not about what to believe but how to believe.

Much as we would like to act as membership secretary for the Kingdom of God, that honour is held by Someone Else. Just as Peter dreamed God saying "It is not for you to call unclean what I call clean", so it is not for us to say "You are not a member of the Church so you are not saved". The Spirit goes where it will.

So Christians are followers of Jesus, those who consciously seek to embody him in their lives. They may succeed or not. There are others who embody Jesus without acknowledging or even being aware of it. It is the embodying that counts, not the profession of belief.

Some people go to music classes to learn the violin. Others have never had a lesson in their lives but play wonderfully well. The music is what counts. This truth is written all over the Gospels. It really is hard though to get it into our stupid heads.

[taijasi]

BINGO! Thanks for refocusing, and starting off, Blue Jay ... and VC, I'm with you 100%. Couldn't have begun to have said it better!

Still, I'll come back with a reply like Blue Jay's, a bit later. Must rest now.

Peace,

andrew

[wil]

My answer in this moment is look at the Amish Grandpa's response.

Forgive the killer of our daughters.

I can't say I agree with everything Amish....

But that is what it means to be Christian, to me.

And that shows me how far I have to go, when it is right there in your face, in your family, teach forgiveness.

Awesome.

[Blue Jay]

Originally Posted by wil

My answer in this moment is look at the Amish Grandpa's response.

Forgive the killer of our daughters.

I can't say I agree with everything Amish....

But that is what it means to be Christian, to me.

And that shows me how far I have to go, when it is right there in your face, in your family, teach forgiveness.

Awesome.

This sounds good, wil. But when you look around a bit you will see non-religious people doing exactly the same kind of thing. And you will see professing Christians prosecute offenders to the nth degree. Thus, this seems not to be a mark of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

I hate to be a stickler but this is coming back to a question of what is different about Christians. But my contention is that Jesus did not primarily intend to start a new religion. He wanted to reform the practice of Judaism but he also knew that the main thrust of what he was teaching went beyond Judaism and was just as valid for gentiles. His teaching was not about what to believe but how to believe.

You hit the nail right on the head. The Christians I know seem to put enormous value in somehow being different from unbelievers. I cannot determine in what way they are different. I just find myself getting really peaved at their attitude. So I figured I'd air the question and see if there really IS a difference. You seem to be saying, No there is no difference.

But the last sentence of this quote. I'll copy it here to make discussion easier.

His teaching was not about what to believe but how to believe.

So it seems you are saying the content of what Christians believe is not important; the attitude they hold toward life is what counts. Do I correctly get your meaning? But any secular humanist knows this, too, plus a lot of others from other religions. So it seems when all is said and done, there is nothing unique about Christians. The term "Christian" is just an empty term to toss around but it really means nothing. Then why not just delete it from our vocabulary and consciousness?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Blue Jay

The term "Christian" is just an empty term to toss around but it really means nothing. Then why not just delete it from our vocabulary and consciousness?

Which is exactly the point of Christians who point out that if you throw out the foundational Christian beliefs, i.e., the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Trinity, then the name 'Christian' becomes pretty much meaningless. Yet when they point this out everyone jumps on them as being judgemental and lacking in tolerance.

2 c,
luna

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Which is exactly the point of Christians who point out that if you throw out the foundational Christian beliefs, i.e., the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Trinity, then the name 'Christian' becomes pretty much meaningless. Yet when they point this out everyone jumps on them as being judgemental and lacking in tolerance.

2 c,
luna

I think these are the basic, or foundational beliefs ... yet the exact significance of each tenet is what is up for discussion. Debate, bah, even from purely philosophical grounds, I'm not sure how helpful that is.

Genuine, open discussion, as occurs in some Sunday School classes (I sometimes hear of these from my Mother), or on discussion forums, seems to help some to find new meaning - even develop faith - in Christianity. Others, it seems, only want to quote mile after mile of Scripture, thump the Bible as some kind of absolute, rigid authority, and thumb anyone who dares to question it. This is not Christianity, I'm afraid, nor is it Christian. It is certainly not in the tradition of Christ Jesus, who taught his followers to question, and to seek the Truth.

We have confused Truth, with words on a page. And we have substituted Faith, for vain repetitions and empty utterances. I say this, even as a believer in and advocate of repetitive Mantra ... because it does matter - what one is saying, and why. But when a person, out of pure ignorance (I mean this as a statement of fact, and not pejoratively), condemns or judges another because s/he prays in a different way, in the name of a different Savior, or addresses these prayers to Allah, Siva, etc. - such judgment, no matter how we try to rationalize it, is un-Christian, un-Spiritual, and unnecessary!

Yet people thrive on it, and make this their religion, instead of an earnest, honest dedication to practicing Chrsitian virtues. It is this, and this alone, which matters: practicing the virtues, as taught by Christ to the faithful followers. Praying in Jesus' name only makes sense when it is done in this context, for this reason - with the aim in mind of amplifying the Christ within, that is to say, developing our hearts & minds as instruments of Service. The prayers, without capitulation, are empty and meaningless.

It is not necessary, or desirable, that everyone comes to immediate agreement as to exactly what each of these tenets means (those which you've mentioned, lunamoth, and others). But continued discussion, and exploration of the depth of these Mysteries, is helpful. Where that is squelched, (any) religion falls short of its purpose and potential. It is perhaps frightening and unsettling to some to admit uncertainty, but this is the first step to increased knowledge and greater understanding, which leads to deeper, stronger Faith.

Love and Light,

andrew

[Thomas]

"What VIRTUES and positive qualities define a Christian, in terms of behavior and his/her attitude & ways of approaching or dealing with the world (self, God, others)?"

The practice of virtue is not the sole prerogative of the Christian, so looking at virtue per se does not define Christianity.
'Christian virtues' only make sense within the context of Christianity – but in that sense, the primary three would be Faith, Hope, Love - but again, these three, as such, are not uniquely Christian. It's not a question of 'what' but of 'why'.

So do some Christians attend no [church/worship] service at all?

Presumably ... but one could then question how they consider themselves Christian, or even why ... ?

Could community service be the way they worship God, and show that they love Him, His creation, and everyone in it?

No. It's not what Christ called the Apostles to do. It is, however, an expression - service to one's fellow creature.

But what do people BEHAVE like?

As far as I know there are no behavior traits unique to Christianity that marks the Christian apart from everyone else.

How do they regard themselves, treat each other?

Ditto.

HOW is their daily routine any different than people of other faiths, or no faith at all?

Ditto.

I would suggest these questions are addressed to a social and superficial Christianity. There is not one question that addresses the fundamental issues, the heart of the matter.

If you want to know precisely what the Christian believes that marks him or her a Christian - then look at the creed or tenets of the denomination in question - they are, one has to acknowledge, a basic statement of what the club one is joining is all about.

I know that Taijasi might rail against creeds, but he does so in a specific context - he rails against my creed from the context of his own - the simple logic is 'credo' is Latin for 'I believe' - so either one has a credo, or one has no fixings at all - agnosticism is a credo, athiesm is a credo - one who has no credo has no idea, let alone belief, and would serve oneself and others best by keeping quiet.

Having acknowledged a Creed - say my own (Catholic) as an example, there are then four steps of investigation:

That it is literally true;
That it is morally true;
That it is spiritually true;
That it is eschatalogically true.

For post-Enlightement relativism - the current mode of philosophy which generally defines thinking in the west - 'literal truth' is debunked as a nonsense and so 'spiritual truth' is separated from any foundation in reality and becomes anything one wants to make of it.

New Age philosophy, when and where it possesses a cohesive philosophical outlook, is an extension of German pietest thinking with a heavy dose of romanticism, garnered with an exotic dressing of terminology lifted from a number of ancient and usually Asiatic sources.

It's not what Christ taught, not what the Early Chrtistian Church practiced, and not practiced by authentic Christians today.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew -

Health Warning - As I know there's some fundamentals on which we're never likely to agree - please read the following as 'gentle ribbing' ... a piece of banter between combatants across the line ...

Others, it seems, only want to quote mile after mile of Scripture,

I know! Look at Jesus, cheesh! Could that guy quote Scripture or what? Anybody say anything and bang! He's straight back at 'em with the Law and the Prophets! Wham! Both barrels, right in the face!

thump the Bible as some kind of absolute, rigid authority, and thumb anyone who dares to question it.

You've got Him to a Tee! Hellfire and Damnation ... He wrote the script!

This is not Christianity, I'm afraid, nor is it Christian. It is certainly not in the tradition of Christ Jesus, who taught his followers to question, and to seek the Truth.

Ooops ... hang on ...

... I think you miss the point? It's not so much the truth, as where he taught them to seek it ... (gulp) in Scripture. There is no other Truth for Christ than the Sacred Books of his people - and when it comes to the Truth, or its seeking, He was one tough cookie who 'brooked no crapulence' from his disciples or from anybody else.

It's obvious from the Gospels that His relationship with His disciples, from their perspective, was anything but easy ... that's why they used to get John to ask the questions when they thought they'd be in for a roasting ... and Peter!? That guy could hardly put a foot right ... it's obvious Peter was marked from the start for a specific role, and got a way tougher deal because of it.

There were the Twelve, and there was a multitude who followed, but on more than one occasion Jesus spoke and lost his followers in droves. He was uncompromising where the Truth was concerned.

He was a shepherd to His flock, but when the wolf came round, He took no prisoners...

You have to admit, Christ is many things, but 'liberal' in the modern context? From what I read, the message is "My way, or no way... "

So it is the tradition of the Church, that when the wolf comes round, that She, too, will stand uncompromisingly for the Fides Qua - the Deposit of Faith - literally, spiritually, morally, eschatalogically - There were no deals with Jesus but on His terms, and there's no deal with the Church on the same grounds.

Anything less would be a betrayal of His mission and His message, entrusted to Her, and Her alone. And what's ultra-annoying is Christ is on record as saying:

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Mattthew 16:19

And that's Scripture, and that's non-negotiable.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

There were no deals with Jesus but on His terms, and there's no deal with the Church on the same grounds.

Anything less would be a betrayal of His mission and His message, entrusted to Her, and Her alone. And what's ultra-annoying is Christ is on record as saying:

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Mattthew 16:19

And that's Scripture, and that's non-negotiable.

Thomas

Thomas my brother, this is where we differ.

Your church, my church, this church, that church.
Red church, blue church, none were sanctified by Jesus...

Yet all claim this divine heritage...

My truth, your truth His truth, Her truth...

Scripture is negotiable, it has been modified by everyone from the scribe who thought something shouldn't be included or needed to be changed and the scribe that thought the side notes that were commentary were actually scripture...to those who needed to modify for their terms.

I for one have no issue with all the modifications and changes as I believe the essence is there. I don't believe everything attributed to Jesus' words or deeds were actually done, that some were stories, hyperbole made for the purpose of keeping the story circulating...and I have no issues with that either.

I think that is what differs from the liberals and the literalists. The dogmatic will spend thier lives proving what is found to be wrong true, and the liberals will simply enjoy what is found to be. The other difference is that I have no issues that they think differently than I, yet they have issues with me, especially when I agree with them.

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

And what's ultra-annoying is Christ is on record as saying:

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Mattthew 16:19

And that's Scripture, and that's non-negotiable.

Thomas

Yep, Christ taught karma, plain and simple. What goes around, comes around. Strange, then, that so many think they can evade, avoid or outsmart God's LAW.

Ah, but you yourself underscore it, by emphasizing how Christ did so! I didn't say Christ didn't quote Scripture, or that He didn't come to "fulfil the Law." But where was His authority? IN Scripture? Because it was on a printed (chiseled) page somewhere?

I think not. Christ spoke with an authority that is open, and available, to every man, woman, even child (!) upon the planet! He is the First among Brethren, yet there are many a Buddhist, Muslim and Zoroastrian in this world who have long since forgotten or transcended truths & understandings which the holiest bishop & pontiff has yet to have even fathomed!

Where I disagree with Protestantism, in short, is with the notion that the entire Celestial Hierarchy between man's heart & mind ... and that of the Supreme Logos ... can be annihilated simply by my snapping my fingers and saying, "Yo, God, listen-up, I got somethin' to say or axe for (sic)."

But the notion that the Catholic Church, as it exists today, is God's sole - or greatest - instrument on Planet Earth ... I am quite certain that while the notion is not foreign to Christ, it is amusing. He knows His prophets, lesser and greater, and He recognizes them regardless of the trappings - certainly not because of them!

Originally Posted by Thomas

There is no other Truth for Christ than the Sacred Books of his people

Yes, an amusing notion indeed. That Christ could not see beyond Humanity's foibles and follies ... and would have had to run to the Holy Books to check on the sermons He was about to preach. No, I think it is today's clergy - of whatever fold of the Cloth - who suffer from this shortcoming (among a host of other shortcomings).

When the Heart is pure, or rightly motivated, then it is meet that the mind should double-check a reference or two, since no one's memory is perfect. Yet as you have pointed out, there is a living Truth which flows through all the great sermons, the prophecies and the utterances of God's Ministers ... from the earliest appearance of Humanity upon this planet! It may be that we confound this Truth, from time to time, with printed words on a page, or some kind of papal bull ... but I dare say Christ never did!

Naturally, some may disagree ...


You know exactly what I am saying, but for simplicity's sake: Did Christ not know the difference, between the common or popular interpretations - and rationalizations - that were being made in His day, versus the true indications in these Spiritual Teachings? Which was the authority, the Book, or the Living Truth within us all, and evident in God's Creation? Hmmm.

Consider the lilies, how they grow: they toil not, neither do they spin; yet I say unto you, Even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these ...

He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath."

This is a bit of scripture, which I think pertinent.

Btw, it is good to see you back, Thomas. I have missed your presence here, as I know have others. We often disagree, but that is entirely beside the point!

Namaskar,

andrew

[Virtual_Cliff]

What an uplifting discussion. Thank you Taijaisi and Thomas.

Yes Christ quoted Scripture, but then so did the Scribes and Pharisees that he denounced. The difference is that he quoted to reveal the deeper underlying truths, rather than the formal superficial words. That is our challenge too.

Jesus is quoted on numerous occasions (the centurion's daughter, "many will come from the East and the West", "in spirit and in truth") as teaching that his mission extended to the whole human race, that the Jewish people had become too small a vessel to hold it. What the church has done is to create another small vessel, and fight to keep it to themselves. IMHO, Christ would not be amused.

As for the keys of the kingdom quote, well, it's very convenient for the Church to have this written down in the Gospels isn't it? But how likely is it? Can you think of any theological justification for this verse, or does it stand out like a sore thumb? You can guess what I think.
VC

[Thomas]

Hi Will -

Scripture is negotiable...

But there is a philosophical argument -

If a text is 'negotiable', wherein lies the meaning – in the text, or does the text have no meaning other than as a vehicle for the negotiator?

So when Scripture says 'no' - is that negotiable?

The assumption that Scripture can be understood, as it is meant to be understood, by anyone and everyone, is a fallacy.

(Relativism, the philosophical position of modernity, insists that there is no 'right answer' and that everything is, as the term applies ... relative - but this position has come under increasing criticism from philosophy, and has shown itself to be very creaky - so the assumption that the relative or modern view is self-affirming is a degree of cultural dogmatism.)

The fact remains that once a process becomes a matter of negotiation, of degree, of personal opinion or taste, the whole issue becomes meaningless.

Thus it must be accepted then, that by 'negotiable' we mean 'a text means what I read from it' - in which case the text is, consciously or otherwise, made to conform to one's own pre-conceptions and eventually then, is rendered 'meaningless' - by which I mean it has no meaning other thaan what the reader pre-determines it will have.

The history of the 'historical-critical' method of scriptural exegesis gives ample evidence for this process: The orthodox argued that scripture is unique in the sense that it is Divine Revelation, the rational empiricist 'evicted' God and history from the text and insisted it is purely a work of ignorance, the Kantian determined that it could not comprise Revelation, but at best man's response to the Divine Imperative which lay beyond his comprehension, the Rationalist/Romantic saw history as a dynamic in the life of man and scripture as man's striving to understand his spiritual nature...

it has been modified by everyone from the scribe who thought something shouldn't be included or needed to be changed and the scribe that thought the side notes that were commentary were actually scripture...to those who needed to modify for their terms.

OK - so either take it, or leave it ... but whatever redaction has taken place, this does not then allow the reader to 'further the error' as it were.

I for one have no issue with all the modifications and changes as I believe the essence is there. I don't believe everything attributed to Jesus' words or deeds were actually done, that some were stories, hyperbole made for the purpose of keeping the story circulating...and I have no issues with that either.

But this falls under your 'negotiation' - by which rule everybody can determine their own individual response ... and in the end what the author intended to communicate becomes of no consequence.

I think that is what differs from the liberals and the literalists. The dogmatic will spend thier lives proving what is found to be wrong true, and the liberals will simply enjoy what is found to be. The other difference is that I have no issues that they think differently than I, yet they have issues with me, especially when I agree with them.

Your insistence that 'the dogmatic proves what is wrong to be true' is itself a dogma of modernism - surely the pot calling the kettle?

I think you let the liberal off the hook too lightly. The orthodox - by definition - seeks the truth of the text, the liberal - by definition - seeks to impress his own truth upon it.

I think the only honest approach is to read the text as what it claims itself to be, and if one cannot agree with the text's claim, then the more honest approach is simply to dismiss it, not to recast it according to one's own opinion.

In my own studies I use the text to interrogate the text, and I read the commentaries of those who do likewise. I see no reason why a sacred text need to be explained by recourse to material other than itself, and I do not see how Revelation can be understood from outside its own hermeneutic.

That's why I 'walked away' from Zen, from Advaita, from Sufism - I delight in their existence, and acknowledge them, and defend them, and in a Godless world consider them as brothers ... but they are not for me - they do not light up my soul, as Scripture does ... or as the heritage of reasoned reflection in the Greek philosophical tradition that defines Roman Catholic theology.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew - I'm glad you didn't draw offence from that post, as I wasn't sure how it might be received.

Ah, but you yourself underscore it, by emphasizing how Christ did so! I didn't say Christ didn't quote Scripture, (no, but you did criticize those who do) or that He didn't come to "fulfil the Law." But where was His authority? IN Scripture? Because it was on a printed (chiseled) page somewhere?

I think not. Christ spoke with an authority that is open, and available, to every man, woman, even child (!) upon the planet!

Not quite - He is the incarnate Son - we are children by adoption - there is a difference. We are not the Trinity.

He is the First among Brethren, yet there are many a Buddhist, Muslim and Zoroastrian in this world who have long since forgotten or transcended truths & understandings which the holiest bishop & pontiff has yet to have even fathomed!

Andrew - that is such an arrogant and transparently anti-Catholic comment! Shame on you!
Unless, of course, you are in full possession of every truth and understanding that every bishop and every pontiff has ever held? And that your own intellectual and spiritual capacity so exceeds the sum total of 2,000 of Catholic thinking that you are in a position to make such a judgement?

Shall I include the Orthodox Churches in that, for they seem to be able to acknowledge the charism, insight and wisdom of the West, despite our differences.

Your agenda is showing its petticoats, old friend!!!

Did Christ not know the difference, between the common or popular interpretations - and rationalizations - that were being made in His day, versus the true indications in these Spiritual Teachings? Which was the authority, the Book, or the Living Truth within us all, and evident in God's Creation? Hmmm."

Well, evidently not 'the Living Truth within us all', or His presence would have been unnecessary:
"In him was life: and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it."
John 1:4-5

So yes - He did know the difference, and so He chose His disciples, schooled them accordingly, and imbued them with the authority of its transmission. This much is evident from Scripture:
"Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
Matthew 28:19-20

"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."
John 20:21-23

and again

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Mattthew 16:19

Until someone offers sufficient and reasonable proof that this is not the case, ie Scriptural proof, I will come down on the side of Scripture. Unfortunately, most arguments I have met are grounded on a rejection of Catholic authority as a prejudice against authority generally and the Magisterium specifically. The argument sees to be 'No-one has the right to tell me ...' which is far from valid or defensible. The Orthodox, of course, have argued the case reasonably and cogently, but outside of their own theology, I find logic and reason lacking.

You have often presented me with the authority of your own sources - many of whom are entirely subjective - and I/we are expected to accept them on your authority. I have never made any such claim, I always defer to the authority of the Church, Scripture and Tradition, because I know that even in absolute certainty, I am still fallible.

That's why I put my faith in God, and not my own understanding.

Thomas