Earlier this week, I was talking with a friend about the truth claims of religion, particularly those of Christianity.  He told me that though he remained highly skeptical of the Christian message, he would be open to reading literature that discussed it without indicating any loyalty to or foundation in Christian dogma.
     As I reflected on his words, I realized that as much as I would like to think that such literature existed, I'd be hard pressed to produce any.  Although one can create marvelous literary works, fiction or not, that speak of the dimensions of Christianity without invoking it directly (J. R. R.. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is one example), it seems that it would be difficult, if not impossible, if one was deeply and seminally committed to the metaphysical assumptions of Christianity--or any religion for that matter--to create a work entirely devoid of them.  Religion tends to do that.  To genuinely experience it is to be totally committed to it.
     In truth, however, should not it be this way?  If the metaphysical is real and our experience of it is likewise (which, regardless of one's religious/spiritual convictions, I believe it is), then someone who has committed herself to it can hardly set it aside summarily, and certainly not categorically.
     Dogma may trouble, dogma may seem rigid, but if we who hold to any form of it routinely ignore it, we may as well not follow it at all.
     Indeed, if God exists, how could we not live differently than if he did not?