Struggles and Skepticism

Currently reading:
On Christian Teaching
   by St. Augustine

Ok, so I'm going to put down some of my current intellectual struggles right now, and hopefully someone can help me with them. I've written a few times about my frustration with the church, and doctrines such as perspicuity of Scripture. Here's my overall problem (similar to the case with the perspicuity of Scripture post): It seems that Protestantism needs perspicuity of Scripture and sola Scriptura in order to stand up (basically, what I mean by that is that a person can pick up Scripture and get the important bits without this reading being mediated by a specific tradition). The problem is, while I can see ways in which these doctrines could work, I still can't see the basis for them. They seem to be thrown out there because we Protestants need them, but I don't accept pragmatic arguments like that for establishing truth. So, I need a basis, but I don't see one.

Without this basis, I have a hard time holding to Protestant views of justification and sanctification. Yes, many Protestant scholars make good cases for Protestant views. Many RC and EO scholars, though, have read the same passages and don't even find them troubling. This at least makes me suspicious of Protestant claims, especially when at seminary I keep reading bad expositions of them (not that all are bad; I remember that Seifrid's Christ, Our Righteousness was pretty good, and I enjoy reading N. T. Wright, but the latter doesn't toe the traditional evangelical on the pertinent issues and the former leaves frustratingly vague how we go about living in Christ). I'm not a Bible scholar, don't have time to look up all of the heated exegetical debates, and am deeply skeptical about being able to get anywhere in those debates if one actually listens to all sides (a feature commonly lacking in theological discussions of any kind, which further deepens my despair because a person who can't understand the view of another is probably simply reading her own view into Paul). Add to this that the more I read Paul, the easier I find it to read "faith," "grace," and "works" against certain dominant Protestant interpretations, and the problem only grows thicker.

Given that I'm still struggling to get good answers to the grounding of Protestantism, I'm leaning more and more toward converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. Other options seem to be liberalism/post-modernism, which can be non-institutional without that firm doctrinal foundation, and Roman Catholicism. The former is attractive, especially since I don't want to have to submit to anyone (I am far too arrogant), but then I'm left wondering if I'm doing much more than Hick is talking about in Interpretation of Religion. Catholicism would be attractive because I wouldn't hear the "m" word ("mystery") thrown about nearly as freely as in Protestantism or EO, and it doesn't have quite the same anti-intellectual bias at the popular level that conservative versions of the other churches tend to have. However, I do think that the Reformation had too many good points against the Catholic church to have been unjustified in their schism, and a church which justifies a schism against it has a huge mark against it.

This, of course, would be a huge step, but the frustations with Protestantism don't seem to be going away, and I'm having trouble getting the answers I need. Of course, now I have another issue. I'm becoming more and more convinced that I need to do something, even I don't know what that something is yet. But then, anything I do will upset other people who will be quite profoundly affected because they either a) simply want what is familiar and comfortable, and can't be bothered to reflect on the underlying issues, or b) come to snap judgments on everything and can ever see anything from another point of view. To what extent would I be selfish if I were to make such a change? To what extent do I have a duty to the truth, even if that hurts others close to me and involve my forcing my will upon them? Worse, it's not like I can ever have certainty about anything, so what do I do when I'm caught between shutting up that voice of conscience inside me for the sake of another (and thus ignoring what is most valuable), and possibly leading them astray by force due to what I consider to be right? And how the Niflheim is there supposed to be any peace in any of this?

If conservative protestantism is true, then how are holding on to faith and struggling to find the truth in order to believe it (so as to know what faith even is) not the hardest works which one could have to do? I hear the refrain of "just have faith" or its variations again and again, but I need to know what faith even is. What do I have faith in? How do I have faith? How can I have this faith before knowing what it is in order to have faith that I will have faith, and know that I will know whatever truth I need? How do I have any sort of peace while waiting for this faith? It's not like I can simply do nothing and wait for God, because there is no such thing as doing nothing. I also desperately need some purpose in life, I so badly need some sort of spiritual satisfaction and have needed it for so long, that I am convinced that something needs to be done; if that's not where God is leading me, then quite honestly I can't really trust his leading any more because he's doing nothing to help me move away from it. The old way simply isn't working, and I'm so very tired of rationalizing.