September 1, 2007
Issue 29
Certainly the most exciting news item of the past week for me and I suspect for many, many others, was the revelations found in a new publication of Mother Teresa’s correspondence with a variety of confidants over many decades of her life. The letters reveal a deep disappointment with her spiritual life especially as it pertained to her perceived inability to experience the presence of God. Her confessions are being played out in the media as shocking disclosures that are shaking the walls of Christendom. Certain ardent atheists are having a field day with their claims (ala Bill Maher) that “She was on my side all along!”
The truth is something far more subtle and easily recognizable by millions of religious folk who have experienced similar doubts and anxieties along their own spiritual paths.
Many years ago, I authored a book entitled: “Confessions of a Christian Agnostic”. In it I tried to articulate some of the questions that are inherent in any religious faith but particularly to Christianity. In the intervening time I have received hundreds of letters from folk who enthusiastically identified with the idea of being both faithful and doubtful. This conundrum centered on the conviction that a good deal of Christianity was shaped by archaic understandings and ancient rites that had little to do with the personal quest to follow the teachings of Jesus. Many correspondents took great comfort in knowing there were others within Christianity with similar concerns. Unlike the caricatures of Christians employed by rabid anti-religionists on the one hand and fervent fundamentalists on the other, these spiritual sojourners found great meaning in their Christianity without abiding by outdated doctrines or primitive world views. Following in the path of Jesus…feeding the hungry, serving the poor, welcoming the stranger, working for peace and justice…unencumbered by arbitrary institutional mandates was a liberating and profoundly rewarding spiritual experience.
There are many Christian Agnostics who are distancing ourselves from archaic images of a anthropomorphic God “up there, out there” and aligning ourselves with the teachings of Jesus who often described the divine as being “in our midst”. In every act of compassion, in every gesture of charity and hospitality, in the search for peace, justice and mercy, there is, according to Jesus, “the kingdom of heaven”, the very presence of all that is holy.
In the current debate about the value of religion many fail to understand that faith isn’t always about doctrine and dogma. Many of us find great religious benefit in the way we live rather than what we are or are not supposed to believe. Ancient creeds matter less to us than current compassionate commitments. It is interesting to note that in three of the four gospels found in the Bible Jesus repeatedly requests that we follow him rather than insisting that we believe in him.
It is terribly presumptuous to be sure but I believe Mother Teresa was caught in this paradoxical struggle…discovering that the teachings of Jesus matter more than the teachings about Jesus. Her inability to blindly believe the doctrines about God, as painful as it was for her, did not prevent her from bringing unparalleled assistance to thousands of the poorest of the poor and in so doing accomplish the work of the very God she longed to meet.
These recently revealed confessions, provocative as they may be to some, only acknowledge what many of us have come to know and experience. Old ways of understanding God are giving way to new paradigms of faith that have little to do with bizarre rituals or antiquated ideas and everything to do with how we go about finding the divine in our midst. By her life and with her doubts, Mother Teresa pointed the way.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The Practicing Progressive
Issue 28
August 15, 2007
When I was a kid I used to hang out at the local library wiling away my after-school hours immersed in reading stories by Beverly Cleary or thumbing through old Life magazines preserved in massive bindings that required both concentration and coordination to slide from the shelf without dropping and disturbing the dozens of silently engaged readers back when silence and libraries were synonymous.
I used to wonder about the old guys who sat at the long oak tables reading newspapers strung through bamboo poles or paging through magazines in between naps. It seemed to me that no matter what time of day or night it was these old geezers were in residence. I complained to no one but myself as I watched them taking up valuable chair space while depositing mini-pools of drool during their mid-reading slumbers.
Now fifty plus years later, and to no one’s surprise but my own, I no longer have to wonder.
So there I was last week sitting amidst a plethora of periodicals trying to decide which one I would pretend to read when a leggy beauty emerging from a limousine caught my attention. She was on the cover of a magazine called “Vanity Fair” whose current issue is a little larger than the “T” volume of the World Book Encyclopedia. A quick perusal with occasional longer pauses revealed the first 200 or so pages filled with equally beautiful women modeling clothes and other paraphernalia vital for personal happiness. Curiously, nearly all of these lovely ladies draped in Dior or Donna Karan appeared to be anything but happy. Sullen might best describe the overriding posture in the poses presented which, I suppose, has been the countenance determined to best sell expensive wardrobes to folk with expendable income by clever advertising executives, sullen or not.
Carefully clearing away the drool off my chin and vaguely remembering a similar scenario, I continued my scrutiny of the periodical. It was not without a certain sadness that I realized I had come to the end of the pictorial preface and was now faced with the daunting task of actually having to read.
The first article I happened upon was by Christopher Hitchens, an intellectually gifted author and journalist who has recently acquired renewed notoriety and growing prosperity by publishing a book entitled, “God Is Not Great”, a polemic against the evils of religion. The particular article in hand was an account of Hitchins’ recent book tour touting this latest volume and solidifying his reputation as America’s most fervent evangelical atheist.
Hitchins, along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and a few less notable others, have tapped into a vein of popular cynicism that dismisses all religions as not just archaic and irrelevant but dangerous. It takes little research to understand where the fodder for such a rationale comes. The headlines are filled with bizarre and frightening examples of religion gone amok. Few can argue that heavenly rewards of perpetual virgins or divine punishment for people who don’t think like Pat Robertson is enough to drive most rational folk over the religious edge. But what Hitchins and the others fail to confront is the very positive elements of religious involvement that have nothing to do with suicide bombers or whacked-out TV preachers.
Religion, at its best, is a search for the sacred in life. The stories, myths, rituals and more are attempts to articulate this holy quest. When people come together to share their gratitude for life, their commitment to health and well-being, their longing for justice and peace…these are religious activities and sacred actions that serve as the very core of civilization. It is only when religionists confuse these proceedings with accurately describing history or objectively defining science that they run the risk of becoming dangerous and destructive.
What I would like to see are evangelical atheists like Hitchins spend less time attacking the bigoted and ignorant straw-men they erect as representatives of religious folk and confront instead the intricacies and subtleties of the spiritual life as it is experienced by millions of others who do not subscribe to bizarre beliefs or xenophobic philosophies.
And I would like him to do it in the next issue of Vanity Fair…but not until I’ve had a chance to peruse the first 200 pages.
August 15, 2007
When I was a kid I used to hang out at the local library wiling away my after-school hours immersed in reading stories by Beverly Cleary or thumbing through old Life magazines preserved in massive bindings that required both concentration and coordination to slide from the shelf without dropping and disturbing the dozens of silently engaged readers back when silence and libraries were synonymous.
I used to wonder about the old guys who sat at the long oak tables reading newspapers strung through bamboo poles or paging through magazines in between naps. It seemed to me that no matter what time of day or night it was these old geezers were in residence. I complained to no one but myself as I watched them taking up valuable chair space while depositing mini-pools of drool during their mid-reading slumbers.
Now fifty plus years later, and to no one’s surprise but my own, I no longer have to wonder.
So there I was last week sitting amidst a plethora of periodicals trying to decide which one I would pretend to read when a leggy beauty emerging from a limousine caught my attention. She was on the cover of a magazine called “Vanity Fair” whose current issue is a little larger than the “T” volume of the World Book Encyclopedia. A quick perusal with occasional longer pauses revealed the first 200 or so pages filled with equally beautiful women modeling clothes and other paraphernalia vital for personal happiness. Curiously, nearly all of these lovely ladies draped in Dior or Donna Karan appeared to be anything but happy. Sullen might best describe the overriding posture in the poses presented which, I suppose, has been the countenance determined to best sell expensive wardrobes to folk with expendable income by clever advertising executives, sullen or not.
Carefully clearing away the drool off my chin and vaguely remembering a similar scenario, I continued my scrutiny of the periodical. It was not without a certain sadness that I realized I had come to the end of the pictorial preface and was now faced with the daunting task of actually having to read.
The first article I happened upon was by Christopher Hitchens, an intellectually gifted author and journalist who has recently acquired renewed notoriety and growing prosperity by publishing a book entitled, “God Is Not Great”, a polemic against the evils of religion. The particular article in hand was an account of Hitchins’ recent book tour touting this latest volume and solidifying his reputation as America’s most fervent evangelical atheist.
Hitchins, along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and a few less notable others, have tapped into a vein of popular cynicism that dismisses all religions as not just archaic and irrelevant but dangerous. It takes little research to understand where the fodder for such a rationale comes. The headlines are filled with bizarre and frightening examples of religion gone amok. Few can argue that heavenly rewards of perpetual virgins or divine punishment for people who don’t think like Pat Robertson is enough to drive most rational folk over the religious edge. But what Hitchins and the others fail to confront is the very positive elements of religious involvement that have nothing to do with suicide bombers or whacked-out TV preachers.
Religion, at its best, is a search for the sacred in life. The stories, myths, rituals and more are attempts to articulate this holy quest. When people come together to share their gratitude for life, their commitment to health and well-being, their longing for justice and peace…these are religious activities and sacred actions that serve as the very core of civilization. It is only when religionists confuse these proceedings with accurately describing history or objectively defining science that they run the risk of becoming dangerous and destructive.
What I would like to see are evangelical atheists like Hitchins spend less time attacking the bigoted and ignorant straw-men they erect as representatives of religious folk and confront instead the intricacies and subtleties of the spiritual life as it is experienced by millions of others who do not subscribe to bizarre beliefs or xenophobic philosophies.
And I would like him to do it in the next issue of Vanity Fair…but not until I’ve had a chance to peruse the first 200 pages.
Monday, July 30, 2007
The Practicing Progressive
Issue 27
July 30, 2007
As I understand it, only one out of the 535 representatives and senators in Washington admits to being an atheist. Judging only from my own experience and what we all know about honesty in our nation’s capital, I have a hunch the real number is significantly higher. Of course, every poll taken on the subject declares the vast majority of Americans want their congressmen and women to be God-fearing folk just like themselves. So the odds of adding to the pool of self-proclaimed atheists serving under the famous rotunda are very slim indeed. Nevertheless, I would like to propose a possible means for allowing honest politicians to proclaim their true beliefs.
Anti-atheist prejudice is not just pronounced in Washington but can be found in a vast array of professional and cultural venues. Cases involving unbelieving teachers, police officers, fire fighters and many more have been taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union and other defenders of religious and non-religious freedom. A recent profile in The New Yorker magazine on Vernell Crittendon, the former spokesmen of San Quentin State Prison, shows just how deep this discrimination permeates. Crittendon was quoted as saying he would advocate for reduced penalties even parole for prisoners who participated in the prison’s public service programs but not, he emphasized, for participating atheist prisoners…even if they were exemplary models. “Without a belief in something larger than yourself, you backslide.” was Crittendon’s definitive rationale.
Similar thinking is at the center of the highly popular 12-step programs, particularly Alcoholics Anonymous. I have known a number of atheistic or agnostic
alcoholics who were bemused by this requirement and were forced to seek treatment elsewhere.
All of us, I am sure, have heard the fuzzy argument against atheism that emphatically declares that without the fear of divine retribution society would be in chaos and sinful behavior would run rampant. Such a low estimation of human behavior may say more about the proponent’s self-esteem than the proposition’s accuracy. We all have known folk who do not share a faith in God but are loving parents, productive co-workers, community leaders, valued members of society. The fact that they do not believe in God seems to be irrelevant to their contributions. And, of course, any one of us can cite more than a few examples of despicable behavior perpetrated by deeply believing people.
The time is long past to fully honor atheism as a viable understanding of reality and a philosophy that can provide meaning for engaging in a moral and productive life. The continuing prejudice against atheistic proponents is tantamount to racial bigotry, gender bias or homophobia. One hopes that more national leaders will come out of the theological closet and admit their religious reservations and resistance.
As an inducement to these closeted congressmen and women, I propose an alternative understanding of God that some may find fits their own perspective and provides a means of articulating dialogue about divinity that is not limited to the conventional monotheistic model.
The briefest glimpse at religious history will show that there is nothing new in this proposal but it is offered as a reminder to present-day politicians and others that there have always been alternatives to orthodoxy that have found favor among many. Indeed, some of the most inspiring religious leaders, past and present, have been decried at one time or another as heretics for their unconventional thinking.
My proposal would have us leaving God as proper noun and utilizing this powerful word in more descriptive ways. God as a verb or a modifier may make shared theological understanding more attainable. We do this already when we describe someone’s action as being “god-like” or when a friend returns from a hike and describes his time in nature as “holy”. Why must there be a source for such epiphanies? Can’t the epiphany be divine in and of itself? Surely this is what Jesus was indicating when he spoke of the Kingdom of God. He was describing a new realm of experience, a heavenly world, entered in the here and now. A world that comes into being in every act of compassion…feeding the hungry, visiting prisoners, liberating the oppressed, etc. These are divine acts. These acts are god.
The convolutions of Trinitarian thought that seek to reconcile a divine being with divine actions can be a huge stumbling block for many who, not irrelevantly nor irreverently for that matter, participate in holy actions without believing in a holy one. Accepting the legitimacy of such a philosophical position could go a long way in allowing all people, politicians included, to express their honest religious understandings.
July 30, 2007
As I understand it, only one out of the 535 representatives and senators in Washington admits to being an atheist. Judging only from my own experience and what we all know about honesty in our nation’s capital, I have a hunch the real number is significantly higher. Of course, every poll taken on the subject declares the vast majority of Americans want their congressmen and women to be God-fearing folk just like themselves. So the odds of adding to the pool of self-proclaimed atheists serving under the famous rotunda are very slim indeed. Nevertheless, I would like to propose a possible means for allowing honest politicians to proclaim their true beliefs.
Anti-atheist prejudice is not just pronounced in Washington but can be found in a vast array of professional and cultural venues. Cases involving unbelieving teachers, police officers, fire fighters and many more have been taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union and other defenders of religious and non-religious freedom. A recent profile in The New Yorker magazine on Vernell Crittendon, the former spokesmen of San Quentin State Prison, shows just how deep this discrimination permeates. Crittendon was quoted as saying he would advocate for reduced penalties even parole for prisoners who participated in the prison’s public service programs but not, he emphasized, for participating atheist prisoners…even if they were exemplary models. “Without a belief in something larger than yourself, you backslide.” was Crittendon’s definitive rationale.
Similar thinking is at the center of the highly popular 12-step programs, particularly Alcoholics Anonymous. I have known a number of atheistic or agnostic
alcoholics who were bemused by this requirement and were forced to seek treatment elsewhere.
All of us, I am sure, have heard the fuzzy argument against atheism that emphatically declares that without the fear of divine retribution society would be in chaos and sinful behavior would run rampant. Such a low estimation of human behavior may say more about the proponent’s self-esteem than the proposition’s accuracy. We all have known folk who do not share a faith in God but are loving parents, productive co-workers, community leaders, valued members of society. The fact that they do not believe in God seems to be irrelevant to their contributions. And, of course, any one of us can cite more than a few examples of despicable behavior perpetrated by deeply believing people.
The time is long past to fully honor atheism as a viable understanding of reality and a philosophy that can provide meaning for engaging in a moral and productive life. The continuing prejudice against atheistic proponents is tantamount to racial bigotry, gender bias or homophobia. One hopes that more national leaders will come out of the theological closet and admit their religious reservations and resistance.
As an inducement to these closeted congressmen and women, I propose an alternative understanding of God that some may find fits their own perspective and provides a means of articulating dialogue about divinity that is not limited to the conventional monotheistic model.
The briefest glimpse at religious history will show that there is nothing new in this proposal but it is offered as a reminder to present-day politicians and others that there have always been alternatives to orthodoxy that have found favor among many. Indeed, some of the most inspiring religious leaders, past and present, have been decried at one time or another as heretics for their unconventional thinking.
My proposal would have us leaving God as proper noun and utilizing this powerful word in more descriptive ways. God as a verb or a modifier may make shared theological understanding more attainable. We do this already when we describe someone’s action as being “god-like” or when a friend returns from a hike and describes his time in nature as “holy”. Why must there be a source for such epiphanies? Can’t the epiphany be divine in and of itself? Surely this is what Jesus was indicating when he spoke of the Kingdom of God. He was describing a new realm of experience, a heavenly world, entered in the here and now. A world that comes into being in every act of compassion…feeding the hungry, visiting prisoners, liberating the oppressed, etc. These are divine acts. These acts are god.
The convolutions of Trinitarian thought that seek to reconcile a divine being with divine actions can be a huge stumbling block for many who, not irrelevantly nor irreverently for that matter, participate in holy actions without believing in a holy one. Accepting the legitimacy of such a philosophical position could go a long way in allowing all people, politicians included, to express their honest religious understandings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
