A hypocrite! She called me a hypocrite! How dare she! I mean, I am as real as the next person. I give no pretense of who I am.

Yet I find myself haunted by the very question that threatens to challenge that fact. Who am I?

As a Christian I say that I am one thing. That I fit a certain mold defined by who someone else is (that someone being Christ of course) and that there are clearly drawn lines as to what that does or does not mean. But how well do I fit that mold?

In my experience I have found that many of us (regardless of religion or lack thereof) spend half the time defining what we are suppose to be and the other half busily defending our conclusions. Perhaps it is here that the young lady's accusation finds its most apropos dwelling place.

Oh, it isn't like I am a dog who is trying to convince everyone that I am a cat. It is more like I am a black dog trying to argue that I am not black but dark brown. I am certainly not trying to convince myself of the fact for that fact is already well established. If it wasn't I wouldn't be spending the time defending it. That would be crazy.

No. That wouldn't' be crazy. That would be lying. Something far worse in my opinion. I would be crazy if I believed something as fact that was obviously not in the face of a great deal of evidence to the contrary. That would be crazy. So maybe I am not a hypocrite after all. I am simply psychotic!

But then would someone who is psychotic know he is? Isn't psychoses a detachment from reality? Now that really does put me in a strange predicament. The only real way to know for sure I am not psychotic is to realize that I am. As long as I am sure I am not I take the very real (if not remote) chance of actually being so and simply being ignorant of it. That's if I was really concerned about being one or the other.

But back to the topic. The problem, as I see it, is that I must be at least somewhat sure that I have my facts straight. Once that is done I can go about convincing others that I am what I believe. And that is where the crux lies. How is one to know that they are what they are without making themselves the standards? And even if they make others the standard how are they to be sure that the "other" is not only the correct standard, but that we ourselves are imitating correctly?

In the end, there is clearly more room for faith then once thought. Not the type of faith that believe lies to be the truth, but that believes truth to be knowable. That believes something can be one thing and not the other. That believes that seeking after truth can be a worthwhile, profitable adventure. An adventure that will take some time and effort to come to the end of...if there is an end.