More than once I've bristled at the term, "Radical Islam," especially when applied to folk like ISIS. I've also grieved when I read or hear a statement that begins "Christians believe..." and goes on to include something I most definitely do not believe. More than once my response has been... "that person is not a Christian," which is likely the same thing they would say about me.
In every religion with which I'm familiar, there is a degree of heterogeneity that includes folk at one point of the spectrum excluding folk at other points on the spectrum as not being real representatives of that tradition. I have read Orthodox Jews say that Reformed Jews are not really Jewish. I know Muslims who would say that the members of ISIS are not really Muslims and of course, those same members of ISIS routinely kill folk who call themselves Muslims but who do not measure up to their definitions. Just the other day I had lunch with a very conservative Christian woman who flatly said that her family as not "Christian" - some of whom are central members of a church I know intimately. Then there are those outside of the various religious traditions who often point to the very worst as examples... those who look at Islam and only see ISIS, at The Family Research Council as the spokespeople for Christianity... you get the picture.
Once I had a discussion with a hyper-conservative Calvinist. At the end of our talk, she remarked, "We worship a different Jesus." She was right. It doesn't seem unreasonable then that the same title doesn't fit both of us.
So, who gets to decide? And using what criteria? Or is a decision even possible?
I would say, yes, a decision is possible and necessary. We live in a world where information travels virtually instantly and every faith tradition finds itself out there, being judged in the marketplace of ideas and actions. It is all too easy for folk to point at one element or another and generalize when that element may or may not fairly represent a religious tradition. The label "Christian" is important to me and the way that label is read by others is then also important to me.
So... first, does the individual or group fit into the general trajectory of the tradition? Every religious tradition changes through history, some more than others, but all change. I would argue that in my tradition, we become more able to understand God's yearnings for humanity and move ever so slowly closer to God's "will." While questions related to the founder like "what would Jesus do?" or "What would Mohamed do?" might be helpful, we must realize that we always see those founders through the lens of our current experience and even our theological stance. The Jesus I see would be clearly different than the one Jonathan Edwards saw or the one that Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council sees. Still, I believe we can look at the broad sweep of a tradition to see what direction it is moving and I would argue judge that something that spins off wildly from that trajectory doesn't fit the definition. In spite of calling themselves "Christian," those in the Christian Identity Movement simply are not. In spite of the word "Islam" being in the title of ISIS, they are not.
I would also argue that a group or person who claims to be trying to go back to the original intent is likely falling outside of the definition. You can't go back... and indeed, God does not go backwards. If the individual or group argues that everyone else has gone astray for the past decades or centuries... that is simply hubris.
Second, look at that trajectory again and ask how the tradition's understanding of who God is has moved... if the individual or group seems to be advocating a "God" outside of that tradition's trajectory, then clearly they are not one of them.
Finally, where did they come from? If they pop up out of nowhere, they don't meet the definition.
The hard question of course is whether God can work outside of the tradition. Of course. God is God and can do whatever God wants... but those radical changes begin something new. Christianity has Jewish roots, but it is not Judaism. Islam has roots in Judaism and Christianity... but it is neither. You get the point.
So, for today, I have no difficulty at all saying that ISIS is not Islam. I'm a little more shy in my own tradition but if you asked me privately I'd tell you what I think about whether or not Westboro Baptist is really a Christian church.
What would your criteria be? Or do you think it is not a worthy effort?
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Choosing Faith for your child
The other Sunday we had a baby dedication at Cambridge Drive. The reality is that we don't dedicate babies... we dedicate the adults in their lives to providing a community of caring, nurture, and education so that they may come to their own profession of faith. That leads me to think about a statement that I hear fairly often, "We don't want to force our children into any faith tradition. They can make their own decision when they get older."
To an uncritical thinker, the two paths may sound very similar. They are not. let me give a metaphor.
"We believe that playing a musical instrument is very important. Indeed, all of the studies show that it is one of the very best exercises for the entire brain. At the same time, we know that playing a musical instrument is a big commitment. It involves time to practice, money for lessons, money for instruments, and in some ways it even determines the child's friends - if for example they play in the band. A young child may think she knows what instrument is best but she is too immature to really think that through. Because it is so important, we'll wait until our son or daughter has graduated from high school so they can make their own decision about playing an instrument and which one."
It is of course, ridiculous. Anyone who has tried to learn an instrument as an adult knows how much more difficult it is than learning as a child. We also know how that brain exercise impacts the brains of young children in positive ways. Finally, learning an instrument is like learning a language and significant bits of that learning are transferable to other languages learned later on. It is fairly obvious that to wait until the child is old enough to "make their own choice" will simply remove the possibilities from them. If they learn no instruments as a child, they likely will never learn an instrument. On the other hand, if they learn an instrument and decide later on to learn a different one, they will already have many of the skills needed to make that transition.
I believe the same thing is true with regards to faith. Without a foundation in a religious tradition it will be very difficult for a young person to make good choices regarding a path for themselves. They won't have a language with which to describe religious inclinations and they won't have a vocabulary to enable them to make judgements regarding the value of one tradition or even one faith community over another. If religious faith has any value, children must be exposed from their youngest days.
And there is that question too... does religious faith have any value? There are scores of evangelical atheists out there these days telling us that religion is at its foundation a negative force. They point to he word "faith" and smirk that it requires commitment to something for which there can be no proof. Then they go on to list the history of religious violence.
There is no argument. Violence has been and still is perpetrated in the name of religion. Still, I think it would be difficult or impossible to parse out the parts of that violence that are religious in nature and which are political, economic, or cultural. Then there have been a few cultures that called themselves atheist. All of which I'm aware were significantly unenlightened.
As for being unverifiable... well, I do not agree that all things of value must be verifiable. I love my wife, my children, and my grandchildren. Is that verifiable? Is it quantifiable? I think not... but it is simply one of the most important commitments in my life.
Are there reasons to believe that a religious commitment, and even more important, a religious community is important? I think so. I would argue that while there are clearly instances of religious violence, that most of the positive movements forward in history have had significant if not exclusively religious components.
All of the blue zone studies have indicated that there is a very positive correlation between longevity and being part of a religious community which gives shape and purpose to life. That is quantifiable.
The unquantifiable part is that of my personal experience. It has been in that larger community of faith that I have found support and challenge that has helped me to be the person I am. Now, I know that one need not have a religious community to have community, but I see very, very few examples of the kinds of connections and support I see in a good church among my atheist friends. They may have small connective groups but they tend to be homogenous in every way and they tend to be much more laissez-faire in their connectedness. The churches in which I've been a part certainly have a degree of homogeneity but they have also had bits that were clearly not. They have all included folk with different political and cultural backgrounds, ages, economic strata, educational attainments... Were I choosing them as friends, many of them would have lain outside those lines. Because the church in effect forced me to be a part of their lives, I found myself enriched in ways that under other circumstances never would have happened.
Finally, religious folk are more generous (again quantifiable) and I would argue that is a very important trait to encourage. Religious faith requires one to look outside of themselves and to think of the welfare of others. Again, it is not difficult to find toxic examples, but even then, there is often a hint of a positive side to it.
So... I would argue that providing a positive foundation for a faith commitment is an important task for a parent and for the larger religious community. Raise a child within a tradition. Then, when they are ready they will choose, but they will have a foundation upon which to make a good decision.
To an uncritical thinker, the two paths may sound very similar. They are not. let me give a metaphor.
It is of course, ridiculous. Anyone who has tried to learn an instrument as an adult knows how much more difficult it is than learning as a child. We also know how that brain exercise impacts the brains of young children in positive ways. Finally, learning an instrument is like learning a language and significant bits of that learning are transferable to other languages learned later on. It is fairly obvious that to wait until the child is old enough to "make their own choice" will simply remove the possibilities from them. If they learn no instruments as a child, they likely will never learn an instrument. On the other hand, if they learn an instrument and decide later on to learn a different one, they will already have many of the skills needed to make that transition.
I believe the same thing is true with regards to faith. Without a foundation in a religious tradition it will be very difficult for a young person to make good choices regarding a path for themselves. They won't have a language with which to describe religious inclinations and they won't have a vocabulary to enable them to make judgements regarding the value of one tradition or even one faith community over another. If religious faith has any value, children must be exposed from their youngest days.
And there is that question too... does religious faith have any value? There are scores of evangelical atheists out there these days telling us that religion is at its foundation a negative force. They point to he word "faith" and smirk that it requires commitment to something for which there can be no proof. Then they go on to list the history of religious violence.
There is no argument. Violence has been and still is perpetrated in the name of religion. Still, I think it would be difficult or impossible to parse out the parts of that violence that are religious in nature and which are political, economic, or cultural. Then there have been a few cultures that called themselves atheist. All of which I'm aware were significantly unenlightened.
As for being unverifiable... well, I do not agree that all things of value must be verifiable. I love my wife, my children, and my grandchildren. Is that verifiable? Is it quantifiable? I think not... but it is simply one of the most important commitments in my life.
Are there reasons to believe that a religious commitment, and even more important, a religious community is important? I think so. I would argue that while there are clearly instances of religious violence, that most of the positive movements forward in history have had significant if not exclusively religious components.
All of the blue zone studies have indicated that there is a very positive correlation between longevity and being part of a religious community which gives shape and purpose to life. That is quantifiable.
The unquantifiable part is that of my personal experience. It has been in that larger community of faith that I have found support and challenge that has helped me to be the person I am. Now, I know that one need not have a religious community to have community, but I see very, very few examples of the kinds of connections and support I see in a good church among my atheist friends. They may have small connective groups but they tend to be homogenous in every way and they tend to be much more laissez-faire in their connectedness. The churches in which I've been a part certainly have a degree of homogeneity but they have also had bits that were clearly not. They have all included folk with different political and cultural backgrounds, ages, economic strata, educational attainments... Were I choosing them as friends, many of them would have lain outside those lines. Because the church in effect forced me to be a part of their lives, I found myself enriched in ways that under other circumstances never would have happened.
Finally, religious folk are more generous (again quantifiable) and I would argue that is a very important trait to encourage. Religious faith requires one to look outside of themselves and to think of the welfare of others. Again, it is not difficult to find toxic examples, but even then, there is often a hint of a positive side to it.
So... I would argue that providing a positive foundation for a faith commitment is an important task for a parent and for the larger religious community. Raise a child within a tradition. Then, when they are ready they will choose, but they will have a foundation upon which to make a good decision.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Mother Teresa et. al.
I've been reading lots of online posts from atheists condemning religion as the cause of almost every atrocity in history and arguing that systems of ethics formulated without reference to any idea of the divine are by definition more humane. I do not question that there are ethical atheists and that there may even be ethical systems based in an atheistic understanding of the universe that are positive. I also have no illusions about the history of religion and know that many atrocities have been and continue to be committed in the name of just about any religion you can think of.
So, here's my question... if atheism can produce the same or higher quality of person as a religious system why is it that we see no atheist Mother Teresa's, Gandhi's, or the like? Granted the list of such folk coming from religious backgrounds is not a huge one, but it does exist and includes many less famous folk who have given themselves to make the world a better place. I'm not aware of any atheists who have made similar ethical impact in the world. On the other hand, we can find atheist leaders who have committed the same kinds of horrific violence that has been attributed to religious folk.
What do you think?
So, here's my question... if atheism can produce the same or higher quality of person as a religious system why is it that we see no atheist Mother Teresa's, Gandhi's, or the like? Granted the list of such folk coming from religious backgrounds is not a huge one, but it does exist and includes many less famous folk who have given themselves to make the world a better place. I'm not aware of any atheists who have made similar ethical impact in the world. On the other hand, we can find atheist leaders who have committed the same kinds of horrific violence that has been attributed to religious folk.
What do you think?
Friday, October 19, 2012
unfriending
I've been unfriended on Facebook... more than once. The first time I was aware of it, I was upset. Yes, I am opinionated and I'm not shy about sharing opinions, but I try to be respectful of those with whom I disagree and I try to learn from them. I also try to help them better understand my position. Yes... there is a degree of "evangelism" inherent in that, but I am more concerned about discussing and learning than about converting. I really wanted to know whether there was something I had said that was offensive and fix it. I didn't try but I still am curious about that first unfriending.
I never imagined that I would do it. I have some pretty conservative friends and I treasure their input especially when we don't agree. That reminds me that there are other ways of seeing the world and they always have something to teach me. They also remind me of some of the fallacies on my side of the theological, cultural, and political boundaries. That is very good.
This week, for the first time I unfriended someone. It wasn't easy for me to do. I really do treasure those connections across viewpoints and I really do try to be both respectful and humble. This time, there was no discussion and no respect coming my way at all and no interest in seeing anything from another's viewpoint. More than once I got messages from other friends asking what was up with that person on my timeline. Then the questions became "why are you putting up with that?" and I began to see that some of the remarks were hurtful to other friends or worse than that, were bringing out the worst in me and in other people. So, I unfriended this individual.
I wish we had been able to talk and learn from one another. I wish that both of us would have been stretched and encouraged to see things in new ways. That just wasn't happening and as another friend reminded me, "don't feed the trolls." I don't regret it, but I am sad.
I never imagined that I would do it. I have some pretty conservative friends and I treasure their input especially when we don't agree. That reminds me that there are other ways of seeing the world and they always have something to teach me. They also remind me of some of the fallacies on my side of the theological, cultural, and political boundaries. That is very good.
This week, for the first time I unfriended someone. It wasn't easy for me to do. I really do treasure those connections across viewpoints and I really do try to be both respectful and humble. This time, there was no discussion and no respect coming my way at all and no interest in seeing anything from another's viewpoint. More than once I got messages from other friends asking what was up with that person on my timeline. Then the questions became "why are you putting up with that?" and I began to see that some of the remarks were hurtful to other friends or worse than that, were bringing out the worst in me and in other people. So, I unfriended this individual.
I wish we had been able to talk and learn from one another. I wish that both of us would have been stretched and encouraged to see things in new ways. That just wasn't happening and as another friend reminded me, "don't feed the trolls." I don't regret it, but I am sad.
Monday, September 05, 2011
they can choose when they're old enough
We've all heard that statement from parents and I'm sure it is meant with all sincerity - "I don't want to impose a religion on my children... they can make their own decision when they're older." I'm not trying to sound insensitive here but... it's a crock.
First off, whatever you teach your children, they're going to make their own decisions when they get old enough. That is human nature. It is what we, as parents hope for, that our children will grow into fully functional adults who can look at complex issues and make decisions for themselves. You can't make it happen, and more importantly, you can't stop that from happening. To imply that somehow by raising a child in a religious tradition will keep them from making their own decisions about faith is just silly.
But there is a way a parent can make it more difficult... By not giving a child a perspective, by not providing the child with tools, you can make it much more difficult for them to make informed and intelligent decisions regarding religious life. Let me give some parallel examples. When our children hit age 9, they were required to take up a musical instrument. Alexis chose folk harp and John chose violin. We paid for lessons and made them practice. John got pretty good as a violinist and Alexis still has her harp, but neither really plays any longer. That was their decision... but had they decided otherwise, starting instruments in adulthood is much more difficult than starting as a child. Believe me, I know.
Second, neither of our children were forced to learn a second language as a child. Guess what, both are mono-lingual. I think Alexis would have been very gifted there and has touches of a variety of languages but the pathways of her brain were not formed correctly as a young child to make learning languages easier and she only has a smattering of each. Let me give a positive example. Both of my children grew up in very diverse settings interacting with people of a number of racial groups, economic classes, educational backgrounds, and sexual orientations and identities. Both are able to easily fit into just about any setting and be respectful and empathetic.
And here is a direct example. Some years ago, one of my close friends with two daughters, one the age of my daughter, suddenly passed away. His young family was in a shambles but the church did exactly what a church is supposed to do and offered an amazing amount of support and caring. It happened that the wife had grown up in a family with no faith. Her sister watched as the church rallied around her and as her own faith gave her strength in a time that made no sense to anyone. The sister was literally amazed. I learned about a year later that she had gone home and began a search for a faith that she could embrace. It wasn't easy as she had no idea even where to begin... except she had seen faith in action as a community of grace and love cared for her sister and nieces. How different from her nieces' perspective when they grew up knowing what a real faith community looks like and how it acts.
For an adult to "make their own decision" regarding a religious tradition, it is sooooo much easier when they have a background, a perspective, a language from which to begin. That child very well may reject your religious tradition, but if you really want to enable them to make an informed and meaningful choice when they're older, give them a background in childhood. Let them participate in a tradition and discover the riches there. Give them a language so they know what they truly need and truly don't. Let them see what faith in life really looks like. Give them training so they have someplace to start.
First off, whatever you teach your children, they're going to make their own decisions when they get old enough. That is human nature. It is what we, as parents hope for, that our children will grow into fully functional adults who can look at complex issues and make decisions for themselves. You can't make it happen, and more importantly, you can't stop that from happening. To imply that somehow by raising a child in a religious tradition will keep them from making their own decisions about faith is just silly.
But there is a way a parent can make it more difficult... By not giving a child a perspective, by not providing the child with tools, you can make it much more difficult for them to make informed and intelligent decisions regarding religious life. Let me give some parallel examples. When our children hit age 9, they were required to take up a musical instrument. Alexis chose folk harp and John chose violin. We paid for lessons and made them practice. John got pretty good as a violinist and Alexis still has her harp, but neither really plays any longer. That was their decision... but had they decided otherwise, starting instruments in adulthood is much more difficult than starting as a child. Believe me, I know.
Second, neither of our children were forced to learn a second language as a child. Guess what, both are mono-lingual. I think Alexis would have been very gifted there and has touches of a variety of languages but the pathways of her brain were not formed correctly as a young child to make learning languages easier and she only has a smattering of each. Let me give a positive example. Both of my children grew up in very diverse settings interacting with people of a number of racial groups, economic classes, educational backgrounds, and sexual orientations and identities. Both are able to easily fit into just about any setting and be respectful and empathetic.
And here is a direct example. Some years ago, one of my close friends with two daughters, one the age of my daughter, suddenly passed away. His young family was in a shambles but the church did exactly what a church is supposed to do and offered an amazing amount of support and caring. It happened that the wife had grown up in a family with no faith. Her sister watched as the church rallied around her and as her own faith gave her strength in a time that made no sense to anyone. The sister was literally amazed. I learned about a year later that she had gone home and began a search for a faith that she could embrace. It wasn't easy as she had no idea even where to begin... except she had seen faith in action as a community of grace and love cared for her sister and nieces. How different from her nieces' perspective when they grew up knowing what a real faith community looks like and how it acts.
For an adult to "make their own decision" regarding a religious tradition, it is sooooo much easier when they have a background, a perspective, a language from which to begin. That child very well may reject your religious tradition, but if you really want to enable them to make an informed and meaningful choice when they're older, give them a background in childhood. Let them participate in a tradition and discover the riches there. Give them a language so they know what they truly need and truly don't. Let them see what faith in life really looks like. Give them training so they have someplace to start.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
It's all about Jesus
I am involved in an interfaith group and have a great deal of respect for most other religions. I believe in my heart of hearts that virtually all religions have some truth in them (and none, including my own, have all) and so have something to teach me. I also realize how much of what one believes is a result of culture and setting. Had I been born in Pakistan, I would likely be a good Muslim boy, in Tibet, a good Buddhist... you get the picture. I know at least a little abut a lot of religions and have good friends who are believers in a variety of faiths.
I marvel at the way my Muslim friends live their faith in their daily lives. I wish I had the centeredness of my Buddhist friends. I have a Hindu friend who has such an incredible sense of the Holy all around her... she sees God where I see weeds. I'm jealous of the deep roots my Jewish friends have. Even within the Christian tradition, there are very different streams - the seriousness of many conservatives, the dedication of many Anabaptists, the commitment to liberation in many minority traditions, the rootedness of the Orthodox... you get the picture. There are also religious traditions in which I don't have friends but I've still learned a little about them - the care the Jain have for all living things, the commitment to standing up for the oppressed that is central to Sikhism, the close community of the Mormons. Yes, I may misunderstand some of the traditions, oversimplify or give in to stereotypes, but I haven't run into a religious tradition that didn't have something I needed to hear.
As you can guess, I don't believe that everyone who doesn't believe like I believe is going to hell. I don't believe God requires one to be a follower of Jesus to find salvation. That is another discussion that I don't want to get into now - just so you understand what I believe and where I'm coming from.
So why am I a Christian vs. something else or some amalgam of a variety of traditions - a JewBu or ChristLim or whatever? Jesus. It is that simple. I find Jesus revolutionary, compelling, and impossible to ignore. When I think of God, it is always through the lens of Jesus. When I wrestle with truth, it is always through the lens of Jesus. When I struggle with my life and the direction I feel I should go, it is always in the context of the cliche'ed question, "what would Jesus do?" Jesus is the one who challenges me to be more, in whom I am inspired as to what that more might be, the one in whom I experience as close as I can get to the fulness of God.
I don't claim to have all of Jesus sussed out. Indeed, I don't think the Christian tradition has him all sussed out (which is why, even though I do believe that Jesus is the Truth, the Christian tradition doesn't have all the truth. We don't "have" Jesus, but hopefully he has us). And I know that there are lots of interpretations of who he is and was. We each see Jesus through a set of lenses formed by our background and culture and even preconceptions but however colored that picture might be, some of the real Jesus still shines through. So, my task as a follower of Jesus is to work to get better and better lenses until they are transparent and don't distort him at all... probably a never ending task, but one to which I'm committed. For me, it is all about Jesus.
I marvel at the way my Muslim friends live their faith in their daily lives. I wish I had the centeredness of my Buddhist friends. I have a Hindu friend who has such an incredible sense of the Holy all around her... she sees God where I see weeds. I'm jealous of the deep roots my Jewish friends have. Even within the Christian tradition, there are very different streams - the seriousness of many conservatives, the dedication of many Anabaptists, the commitment to liberation in many minority traditions, the rootedness of the Orthodox... you get the picture. There are also religious traditions in which I don't have friends but I've still learned a little about them - the care the Jain have for all living things, the commitment to standing up for the oppressed that is central to Sikhism, the close community of the Mormons. Yes, I may misunderstand some of the traditions, oversimplify or give in to stereotypes, but I haven't run into a religious tradition that didn't have something I needed to hear.
As you can guess, I don't believe that everyone who doesn't believe like I believe is going to hell. I don't believe God requires one to be a follower of Jesus to find salvation. That is another discussion that I don't want to get into now - just so you understand what I believe and where I'm coming from.
So why am I a Christian vs. something else or some amalgam of a variety of traditions - a JewBu or ChristLim or whatever? Jesus. It is that simple. I find Jesus revolutionary, compelling, and impossible to ignore. When I think of God, it is always through the lens of Jesus. When I wrestle with truth, it is always through the lens of Jesus. When I struggle with my life and the direction I feel I should go, it is always in the context of the cliche'ed question, "what would Jesus do?" Jesus is the one who challenges me to be more, in whom I am inspired as to what that more might be, the one in whom I experience as close as I can get to the fulness of God.
I don't claim to have all of Jesus sussed out. Indeed, I don't think the Christian tradition has him all sussed out (which is why, even though I do believe that Jesus is the Truth, the Christian tradition doesn't have all the truth. We don't "have" Jesus, but hopefully he has us). And I know that there are lots of interpretations of who he is and was. We each see Jesus through a set of lenses formed by our background and culture and even preconceptions but however colored that picture might be, some of the real Jesus still shines through. So, my task as a follower of Jesus is to work to get better and better lenses until they are transparent and don't distort him at all... probably a never ending task, but one to which I'm committed. For me, it is all about Jesus.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
spiritual but not religious
"spiritual but not religious" is a very popular descriptor people use these days when describing their spiritual lives. It even has been getting press from Lady Gaga describing herself as very religious while separating that from the church on Larry King to a CNN article on just that topic. My wife is a chaplain with a local hospice provider and seems to have many patients, perhaps even a majority, who would describe themselves that way.
So, no punches pulled... the descriptor doesn't impress me. I have to say that many people I know who use that descriptor are really just saying, "I know there is something more, something bigger than me, but I don't want to relate to that entity in any way that requires anything that requires commitment from me or calls me to a place where I'm not entirely comfortable."
I understand the bad feelings about organized religion. I know the failures of the institutional church as well as anyone and can recite the sins of organized religion's history. I have friends who have been deeply wounded by religious organizations and whose scars will never completely disappear. I've seen the pettiness, the lust for power, the self-righteousness, the easy answers to hard questions. I understand the reluctance to give anything to organized religion... BUT...
It seems to me that the organized part is absolutely and completely necessary for human beings to mature spiritually. Why? Because you can't do it alone. I'm a Baptist and I believe in soul liberty - the idea that each individual is responsible for his or her own faith before God (yes, that is a Baptist idea!) - but, the individual cannot spin it out of his or her own juices. You need a community of faith to give you a vocabulary to begin with. And then you need people to call you on the carpet when you've gone too far and to push you when you haven't gone far enough. To do this efficiently and consistently, you need organization. You need regular times to get together. You need some way to raise and wrestle with the important issues. You need structures. Virtually nothing of any importance happens without organization.
Here is my picture of "spiritual without religion..." - it is like when someone asks for a glass of water, you pour the water into their open hand without a glass. Yeah, they get a little water, but most of the water is spilled onto the ground. Now having a glass requires some effort. You have to wash it. You have to take care so you don't break it. But in the end... a container sure would have made things better.
So, given all of the failings of organized faith, what do we do? Dream dreams of what it should be and jump in. It won't be easy. Inertia is a powerful force, but change can come and the organizations can become more of what they're supposed to be.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
religious literacy
I'm not a prodigious reader but I do usually have two or three books that I'm working through - some I finish and some I lose interest, most take a while, and one that I'm listening to on disk as I commute back and forth to Goleta.
It happens that I'm reading and listening to two books by the same author... and they are important books. The first is the audio book - Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know and Doesn't. In it, Prothero, who is a professor in the department of Religious Studies at Boston University argues that there is a civic reason for every American to be literate in religion. He says that in order to properly understand history and politics, one must understand the religious language and traditions of a people. Equally important, he argues that unless we understand the religions of a given culture, our foreign policy will miss many critical possibilities and pitfalls. For example, he says that had we had experts in the US government ho truly understood Islam as it is understood and practiced in Iraq and Afghanistan, our foreign policies in those countries would have taken very different shapes. He doesn't care whether you believe a articular religion or not, but feels it is critical in or world to understand them and to know the basic beliefs, practices, and narratives.
The second book is God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World and Why Their Differences Matter. This book begins by arguing that all religions are not the same. They do not diagnose the problems of the human condition in the same way, their solutions differ, and the end result they hope for are not the same. The book is his answer to the problem set for in the earlier book. Here are thumbnail sketches of eight religions we should know about in today's world.
I find both of these books to be extremely important ones. Understanding the religious culture of a people is critical to understanding why they do what they do. Without that understanding, there is not possibility of working together to solve the problems we face. Likewise, arguing that every religion is really the same is both insulting to the various religions (the person making the statement always chooses something important to them as the common goal rather than letting the religion speak for itself) and keeps us from really understanding. If we go into the conversation expecting that we're all playing the same game, how will we be able to understand a completely different paradigm of the world.
Obviously there are problems. Trying to distill all of Islam into 40 pages requires oversimplification. Imagine trying to cover Christianity in 36 pages! Still, for most of us, those 40 pages on Islam leave us knowing more than we did when we started. Indeed, even in a country that is majority Christian, the 36 pages on Christianity will leave many folk knowing more than they knew before reading the chapter.
Bottom line, I highly recommend these two books. If you are interested in interfaith work, they provide a good place to start. If you want to be a good citizen of the world, you will be better prepared. If you want to get along better with your neighbors in this increasingly diverse religious mix called America, they are a good place to start.
It happens that I'm reading and listening to two books by the same author... and they are important books. The first is the audio book - Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know and Doesn't. In it, Prothero, who is a professor in the department of Religious Studies at Boston University argues that there is a civic reason for every American to be literate in religion. He says that in order to properly understand history and politics, one must understand the religious language and traditions of a people. Equally important, he argues that unless we understand the religions of a given culture, our foreign policy will miss many critical possibilities and pitfalls. For example, he says that had we had experts in the US government ho truly understood Islam as it is understood and practiced in Iraq and Afghanistan, our foreign policies in those countries would have taken very different shapes. He doesn't care whether you believe a articular religion or not, but feels it is critical in or world to understand them and to know the basic beliefs, practices, and narratives.
The second book is God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World and Why Their Differences Matter. This book begins by arguing that all religions are not the same. They do not diagnose the problems of the human condition in the same way, their solutions differ, and the end result they hope for are not the same. The book is his answer to the problem set for in the earlier book. Here are thumbnail sketches of eight religions we should know about in today's world.
I find both of these books to be extremely important ones. Understanding the religious culture of a people is critical to understanding why they do what they do. Without that understanding, there is not possibility of working together to solve the problems we face. Likewise, arguing that every religion is really the same is both insulting to the various religions (the person making the statement always chooses something important to them as the common goal rather than letting the religion speak for itself) and keeps us from really understanding. If we go into the conversation expecting that we're all playing the same game, how will we be able to understand a completely different paradigm of the world.
Obviously there are problems. Trying to distill all of Islam into 40 pages requires oversimplification. Imagine trying to cover Christianity in 36 pages! Still, for most of us, those 40 pages on Islam leave us knowing more than we did when we started. Indeed, even in a country that is majority Christian, the 36 pages on Christianity will leave many folk knowing more than they knew before reading the chapter.
Bottom line, I highly recommend these two books. If you are interested in interfaith work, they provide a good place to start. If you want to be a good citizen of the world, you will be better prepared. If you want to get along better with your neighbors in this increasingly diverse religious mix called America, they are a good place to start.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
The Words
I have a good friend who is on a spiritual quest. She hungers for something... for faith... for connections. She has lots of friends from various faith traditions and she has shared her hunger with them all. Most have shared their stories in response. She especially struggles with dogma and with any top down kinds of directives.
We were talking one day and she told me that she was very attracted to Judaism but she just can't seem to leave out Jesus. I understand that feeling. Now, I know that I am a product of my culture and my background and all of that colors what I see and how I see it... but I just can't ignore Jesus either. His words, his actions, the movement he began, a view of God's kindom more inclusive and expansive than any other I'm aware of... I just can't ignore Jesus.
At the same time, there are lots of pieces that make me want to ignore those people who call themselves his followers. Since the very beginning we have overlayed Jesus with our interpretations, our dreams, our fears, and our theologies. Some, I think, have clearly represented him well. At other times, we have so skewed his message as to make it unrecognizable. Once, on a plane trip, a young woman with whom I was talking said, "we don't worship the same Jesus." She was correct, I think. Our presuppositions had so colored what we see, that we were not seeing the same thing at all.
Now, I know it is not possible to remove all of those lenses. But it is a good thing to work towards. One step is a new project by Lee Cantelon called The Words where he is publishing a collection of the words of Jesus. Again, I know there are translational issues and I know that scholars debate which statements Jesus actually made and which he didn't but the task is still a worthy and helpful one.
The book has already been translated into a variety of languages, has inspired a number of artists including Rickie Lee Jones and Abiodun Oyewole of the Last Poets, and is available as a free download in a bunch of languages both as text and as an audio book. You can purchase the printed copy at Amazon.
I'm really looking forward to it. I just can't ignore Jesus.
two quotes about the work... first from Rickie Lee Jones
and from Lee Cantelon
We were talking one day and she told me that she was very attracted to Judaism but she just can't seem to leave out Jesus. I understand that feeling. Now, I know that I am a product of my culture and my background and all of that colors what I see and how I see it... but I just can't ignore Jesus either. His words, his actions, the movement he began, a view of God's kindom more inclusive and expansive than any other I'm aware of... I just can't ignore Jesus.
At the same time, there are lots of pieces that make me want to ignore those people who call themselves his followers. Since the very beginning we have overlayed Jesus with our interpretations, our dreams, our fears, and our theologies. Some, I think, have clearly represented him well. At other times, we have so skewed his message as to make it unrecognizable. Once, on a plane trip, a young woman with whom I was talking said, "we don't worship the same Jesus." She was correct, I think. Our presuppositions had so colored what we see, that we were not seeing the same thing at all.
Now, I know it is not possible to remove all of those lenses. But it is a good thing to work towards. One step is a new project by Lee Cantelon called The Words where he is publishing a collection of the words of Jesus. Again, I know there are translational issues and I know that scholars debate which statements Jesus actually made and which he didn't but the task is still a worthy and helpful one.
The book has already been translated into a variety of languages, has inspired a number of artists including Rickie Lee Jones and Abiodun Oyewole of the Last Poets, and is available as a free download in a bunch of languages both as text and as an audio book. You can purchase the printed copy at Amazon.
I'm really looking forward to it. I just can't ignore Jesus.
two quotes about the work... first from Rickie Lee Jones
”The words of Jesus remain a ‘soft dream' that falls night by night, until the soul is ignited with courage. Our hearts, that did not sing until now, are filled with hope that did not yet dare to dream of freedom from poverty and oppression. With faith, what one feels is the Truth, and the truth, while difficult to teach, is immense. It is easy to learn. We have Christ among us, speaking through each of us, if we choose to listen. We have Christ and though there are few words, they are enough, they are enough to last two thousand years. In spite of so much distortion of His will and meaning, they reverberate clearly in the good work of so many Christians who may not even know they are ‘followers.'”
and from Lee Cantelon
The words of Jesus resound with a challenge to a world burdened by greed, self-righteous religion, and pride. The Jesus I discovered spoke a message of humility, one that did not emphasize a vengeful God, but one of love. His words were filled with mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. A new kind of kingdom was being introduced in his words, accessible to all; men, women, Jews, Gentiles, slaves, kings, free, lost, illuminated, and illiterate. All that was required was that we become “like children” and hold fast to this kind message that offers the stern command, “open your hearts!” How this has become so much dogma, who can understand? And understanding, to recognize his invitation to our right to become “children of God.” Is no great feat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
