With Good Reason

I am currently reading With Good Reason: An Honest and Searching Quest for a Personal God by Chester A Pennington.  It's a small book that was handed down to me from my Grandfather's collection.  My Grandpa passed away last summer and I find that reading his books brings me closer to understanding who he was and what he believed.  

I'm a 5'10 ENTJ female.  I've been told that I can be intimidating, but I think that really comes from my love of a good argument.  When others see the word argument they probably think of a conflict between people or groups of people, but I've always thought of it first as someone making their case for truth... (here's your nerd reference)

ar·gu·ment

  [ahr-gyuh-muhnt]

noun

1.

an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.

2.

a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument aboutinflation.

3.

a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.

4.

a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.

5.

an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse

My Grandfather on the other hand was a 5'1-3ish quiet and gentle man.  I never felt that close to him growing up, but I always respected him.  He was the type of man a person ought to model their life after, but he never dove into the deeper issues of theology and philosophy.  So I guess the few books I have to read give me an opportunity to relate to him on that deeper level.  

Here is an excerpt from the book that I've found compelling:

Of course we have always known that faith is finally a choice among alternatives that there is never any conclusive proof for a faith.  Where we stand is always a decision.  Our ultimate conviction is always a commitment.  But the choice is not blind.  The decision is not unreasoned.  The commitment is not arbitrary.  Indeed it may be that our decision is elicited by something decisive in the nature of things. 

Recently my church sponsored an exhibition of contemporary art, centering around the theme of life’s meaning.  On the opening night several of the artists were present and generously offered to answer any questions the people might want to ask.  Of course, the inevitable question was flung out, “What does it mean?” or “What are you trying to say?” 

In reply, one of the young men spoke of the “language” which the artist uses, the language of color, line, texture.  And he challenged us to take the trouble to learn to “read” the artist’s language.  Then he said a very interesting thing:  “The artist has committed himself.  Perhaps what is required is a corresponding commitment from the viewer.” 

Is this the way we must read the universe?  Could it be that the Artist has committed himself? And that we must correspondingly commit ourselves?