A brief essay briefly exerpted at the Episcopal Cafe is on Doubt:
"Peter Steinfels has a provocative column in the New York Times that discusses the importance of doubt to our modern faith. The question he raises is this: is our doubt a transition to a life without faith? Or is modern faith simply more comfortable with doubt? While inconclusive, the data seems to point to the first option:
“Belief in God isn’t quite the same thing in 1500 and today,” writes Charles Taylor in “A Secular Age” (Harvard University Press, 2007), his formidable exploration of how the conditions of religious belief — and of unbelief, too — have changed for modern Westerners."
COMMENT: Sigh.... Such a false dichotomy. I have come to love my bouts of doubt. Doubt has proved to be the work of the Spirit in my life--to make me aware of the pitfalls of romanticism, narrowness and the darkness of deadly assurance.
Doubt is not an obstacle to faith nor the transition to un-faith, but is the doorway to a deeper and broader revelation of the eternal mystery. In the discussion of the above article, faith and belief are used synonymously. Faith, for me, is not belief.
Belief is confidence in answers to questions. I have no belief. Belief is a place of confidence and no mystery. But I have faith. Faith is a place of mystery.
Faith dwells where there are no answers, but only the opening up of vistas for which there are few words. Faith is trusting even utter devastation and death. Faith is not a state of mind, but a way of being.
Doubt is faith with an imagination that leaves belief at the door of the Sunday school classroom. Yes?
Also, Jim Naughton at the Episcopal Cafe provides this bit of news from the opening Eucharist of the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury:
"While talking to the press on the green I learned that Bishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone and some others had not taken communion at the Eucharist. This strikes me as very poor theology. I’d take the Eucharist with a congregation full of murderers, not as an endorsement of their worth, but as an acknowledgment of my need. To willfully reject an opportunity to receive the body and blood of Christ because you have theological disagreements with other members of the congregation seems an act of incredible spiritual pride. In pursuing the strategy, Venables asserts his right to pass judgment on the guest list for the Lord’s Supper, a meal at which he himself is a guest."
COMMENT: So, if +Venables is refusing communion at Canterbury, why the hell is he even at the conference? --the whole basis of being a member of the Anglican Communion resides in the idea that one takes communion with the See of Canterbury.... and here he is refusing to do so. If this is true, I'd say he had excommunicated himself. --someone ought to finish the job he has begun and kick the wad-head out.... Stupid. Stupid. Mean. Stupid.
Obviously, Venables has no doubt... and therefore perhaps a very strong belief, and little faith....