Two of my favorite recent reads are coinciding in the soup of my musings this week. They couldn’t be more different. The one is Walter Brueggemann’s Hopeful Imagination: Prophetic Voices in Exile and the other The Glamour of Grammar by Roy Clark. Brueggemann is a theologian while Clark teaches writing as vice president and senior scholar at the Poynter Institute.
The word that’s bringing them together is “conviction.†Discussing the prophet Jeremiah, Brueggemann writes, “Pastoral vitality is related to a concrete sense of what God is doing in the world.” (Brueggemann 16) The same can be said about congregational vitality. In the end it’s a question of conviction.
As I dissected the word, I thought about its most common usages related to belief systems and legal proceedings. One can be convicted by arguments about the nature of God or some philosophical point and one can be convicted in a court of law. I remembered Clark calling two or more words that sound alike and are spelled alike but have different meanings homonyms. (Clark 38) The question then became how different are these two meanings in the context of a life of faith?
Both seem based on evidence, observable facts. To be convicted in a court of law one’s guilt needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There needs to be evidence. But one’s conviction also needs to be proved when the word is used in the religious or philosophical sense. Our deeds and words need to be consistent with our convictions, provided we are truly and deeply convicted.
It made me wonder what would happen if Christianity were suddenly banned. Would there be enough evidence to convict those who profess to follow Jesus? What would be the legal litmus test for a modern-day disciple? If it’s following in the way of Jesus by meeting the needs of the poor, the sick, the suffering, I’m not so sure many of us will end up with convictions.
This brings the meanings of the word very close to each other and has given me a lens through which to continue pondering my own discipleship.