THE POST CHRISTIAN WORLD AND IRELAND

Once, during a conversation about Christianity, I mentioned that we're living in a post-Christian world. The people I was conversing with looked as if they had never heard of that term.  I was surprised they hadn't. I knew it wasn't something I came up with and was baffled by their bafflement.

It's interesting how the word "post" can put people on edge. With it comes a feeling of uncertainty, a loss of influence, and a sense of insecurity.  I think some of those I was conversing with were possibly thinking how can this be?  There's almost two billion Christians in the world. It's the world's largest religion.

I think this confusion stems from a competitive mindset that leads one to compare. When I mentioned post-Christian world, I was fairly certain some were thinking I was making an implied comparison between Christianity and the growing number of Muslims in the world or the growing number of "nones," the unaffiliated.  I wasn't.

Post- Christian, like post-American means that other things are emerging, as they always do, as they always have done.  It's not about competition or a loss of influence.  That there is a sense of loss or insecurity stems from an innate resistance to change  we all possess.  The meaning of "post" that I am positing is that life moves on to new phases and there is little one can do to stop it without causing great damage to peace and stability.

POST-CHRISTIANITY

Nothing better illustrates the emerging post-Christian world than the recent Irish vote to change its national constitution to allow marriage between two people regardless of their sex.   The Irish rightfully understand this as a revolution.  For as long as I can remember, Ireland has been  associated with the Roman Catholic church; that outside of the Vatican, Ireland was the most Roman Catholic country in the world.

So what happened? 

One thing that seems to have generated the overwhelming support for permitting same sex marriage in Ireland is related to the fact that the Irish suffered from a repressed environment as a result of being so Roman Catholic; a church so dogmatic and rigid in its dogmatism regarding sexual morality as means to control its laity that it was bound to implode and implode it did with a sex scandal that rocked the Christian world and exposed the hypocrisy of Roman Catholic Church as a moral authority. 

This was undoubtedly a factor in the Irish vote, but there is more to this vote than that, more to its significance than merely poking the Vatican in the eye. For the Irish it was the long-awaited consummation of it's national independence. 

All of Christianity should take notice. All of Christianity is on notice.  This isn't just a revolt against Catholicism or an attempt to send the Vatican a message. The Irish vote exposes the spiritual anemia that has affected Christianity for some time.

For as along as I can remember, almost every Christian church's claim to moral authority was hinged on controlling the sexual behavior of its membership as the primary means of ensuring that authority.  Christian churches largely gave society its understanding of what constituted "deviant sexual behavior," and societies, for the most part, have accepted it including non-theistic societies.

Consider the following:

• Having sex out of wedlock was toying with hellfire, but easily remedied by getting married. 
• Adultery got you to the gates of hell, if not in it.  Repentance, remorse, and sticking with your spouse (no matter how abusive the relationship) might remedy that. 
• Divorce was a serious breach which could deprive one of Holy Communion in liturgical churches, a sure sign one had a reserved hot seat down below. It's remedy was to try as hard as one could to stay in a relationship no matter how abusive it was or to get an annulment from the church.
• Masturbation was comparable to stealing.
• Homosexuality was comparable to murder. 
• Celibacy was a ticket to heaven, if one stayed pure. 
• Marriage and having children would get you a reservation there too, if you stuck with your vows.

What church authorities understood very well throughout the centuries (an emulated by almost every authoritarian secular government) is that controlling the sexual functions of its members by designating such behaviors as either moral or immoral, worthy of heaven or worthy hell, gave them almost total control over every other aspect of their member's lives. 

SEX AND BASEBALL

 As a young Lutheran, growing up in a plains state,  I remember going to a local youth group convention where we had a good talking to about appropriate sexual conduct, which could have been simply stated in three words:  "DON'T DO IT!"  Nevertheless to drive that point home, a young, recently ordained pastor, took us boys to the chancel area of the church where we were meeting at to tell us in no nonsense terms about not letting our hormones get the best of us.  The girls were taken to the church's basement where some Deaconess was having a similar talk with them.  We boys were told the importance of not getting carried away with romance; that we should wait till we're married before even thinking about sex.   

Trying to relate to us in a manly way, this young pastor awkwardly talked about  the sexual temptations we would encounter in dating.  His means of doing so was to use the well-worn baseball metaphor about reaching first, second, and third base.   Occasionally he would be interrupted by snickering sounds from some of the older boys and had to stop in order to give us a serious shushing sound which made some of the younger boys giggle harder.  He was clearly out of his league. 

Being so poor at baseball myself, I felt relatively safe because in baseball I rarely made it to first base.  His analogical link to romance made my prospects quite grim.  If his intent was to deter us from thinking about sex, he failed miserably.  By the end of his talk and on the way back home we could talk about nothing else. That was fifty years ago. Not much has changed in the church's view and use of sex. 

My point in telling this story is to illustrate Christians lack of understanding scripture in their failure to appreciate the fact that forbidden fruit is the most alluring fruit in the orchard.  Ultimately, church leaders became caught in their own web of sex-orientated control.  It is almost becoming a routine occurrence that those who vehemently preach against sexual immorality are the most ardent practitioners of what they preach against.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ireland commented something to the effect that the church is out of step with the youth of Ireland and the world.  This is true of all churches and I felt it to be true when I was a young adolescent.  I questioned back then, why all the fuss about Bible camps and youth retreats?  Why can't the church just be the church?  Why does it think it needs to make a special appeal to the young people?  What was their fear?  The answer is clearly apparent in the Archbishop's comment, losing control.

For one thing, I found that what the church thought I should be like, I wasn't like, which made me feel disconnected at times.  I was supposed to like campfires, guitars playing "Kum Ba Ya", etc.  I didn't.  The church tried to herd us into a flock mentality of their own making; that we all had the same likes, dislikes, and hang-ups that our adult fellow parishioners were sure we had.  Of course, if you didn't have such like, dislikes or hang-ups that these well-meaning adult Christians thought you had, one felt something might be wrong with oneself.  What became apparent to me, back then, and has been confirmed since is the more the church attempts to make itself relevant to "youth"  the more exposed its irrelevance becomes.  That we were living in a post-Christian world was becoming very evident by the late 1960's.

There will undoubtedly be a backlash against the Irish vote, if not in Ireland, then in other countries, but the handwriting on the wall is clear.  The Church has been rendered impotent.  Nothing illustrates better our post-Christian world than its handling of  the same sex issue.  In fact, the church has been so smug with it's sexual control issues it seems to have been totally blindsided by the same-sex marriage issue. The possibility is that the Irish vote may have a far more reformative effect on Christianity than the Protestant Reformation ever did.

So called moral conservatives will see this as a sign of the end times. In a way they are correct. Change is coming; things are bound to be different.

The hierarchical structure of Christianity rests on a foundation composed of the unquestioning obedience of its laity and held together by their belief in the moral authority of its leaders. 

Now that this belief is fading as a result of  their own ecclesial arrogance and hypocrisy, the ecclesial hierarchy is at risk of being disestablished.  In many ways, it already has.

As Rome goes so does the rest of Christianity.

Protestants may object to that statement, but Protestants are not immunized from what has taken place in Ireland. Sexual scandal after sexual scandal has plagued every known Christian denomination around the world.  In that sense, the sex scandal in Christianity is a catholic (universal) scandal, not just a Roman Catholic one.

ERIN GO BRACH

The Irish voters may actually help save Christianity from total self-destruction and total irrelevance. In order to survive, to remain relevant, Christian churches need to wake up to the fact that its moral authority can no longer be hinged on its ridiculous obsession with sex and youth.  Given the cases of sexual molestation of the children by pedophiliac clergy in Ireland, the Irish could have hunkered down on the whole sexuality scene, could have insisted that celibacy be abandoned; that monks, priests and nuns be allowed to marry to temper the sexual passions that all humans have, but they didn't do that.

They chose the better path of an open heart and an open mind; the path of Jesus.  They chose to break open the biggest closet door in their midst, the door leading to the church's sacristy, the door of fear mongering.

The Irish may have well broken down the very gates of hell with the battering ram of acceptance and understanding.

The keys of the kingdom have been taken from the church because instead of unlocking doors so people could enter the kingdom, churches have been threatening, for far too long, to keep people out who dared to question its authority or who failed to keep their mouths shut when things were obviously skewed.  While this has been identified mostly with the Roman Church, it is true of all  Christian churches. 

Those days are surely coming to an end.

We may not see the full effects of this change in the near future.  It is not apparent as yet, but Christianity will change or Christianity will recede into a backwater cultic religion.

The Irish did what the church was called to do, open the hearts and minds of people to the power and goodness of love and to embrace the goodness of life in all its variety.  It's a very Irish and Celtic thing to do.  It was a very Jesus-like thing to do.

If understood correctly, being in a "Post-Christian" mode should allow churches to decompress, to do some soul searching with regard to what is and isn't important - to get it's head on straight and stop its insane obsession with control, fear, and sex.  Pope Francis seems to get this as do other theistic religious leaders, but it may be a case of too much, too late.  

A RENEWED SENSE OF MORALITY

What Christian churches must realize is that people are not seeking to become immoral, but rather to define morality in terms of acceptance and care, rather than fear and rejection.  Christianity must learn the lesson of the Irish if it is to survive.  Christianity, itself, owes a great deal to the Irish.  Christianity would not have taken hold, in first place, if weren't for Irish missionaries back in 6th and 7th century.  The pathway to a renewed sense of morality, as appreciation for life in all its variety is the new Gospel message that the Irish are now spreading.  Christianity should take notice because Christianity is on notice. 

A POST-THEISTIC WORLD

What I have said of Christianity, could easily apply to all theistic religions, especially, mono-theistic religions.  Almost half of the world's entire population is non-theistic. For all of the evangelization and proselytizing done by Christians and Muslims, to spread their respective types of monotheism, the world is fed up to its collective eyeballs with their antics.  While Christians compose the largest religious segment of the world's population and Muslim's a close second, both are in decline. In a recent report, Muslims are growing, slightly due to the rise in Muslims birthrates.  The projection is that both of these "religions" will decline in numbers over the next few generations.  It is easy to project this, based on a historical trajectory, that after the devastation caused by the Islamic reformation (as with the Christian reformation) that a period of enlightenment will arise which will question the stupidity of our present age.  The fact is  the Enlightenment has never really ended.  It continues in an ebb and flowing way.

Post-theism, like post-Christianity, if understood and used appropriately, does not mean the end of theism, but rather affords theistic religions to get their act together, to purge themselves of their mindless and destructive theologies - to present God as intimately connected to all of us, not just the "right" type or the "right" behavior.  Theistic religions have, at times, exemplified what is the best in humanity, but they have also stood back and became complicit with humanity at its worst. 

The evangelization and proselytization of the world must end if theism is to remain relevant.  Instead of conversion, theistic religions must engage in a redemptive, restorative process geared at saving what is, not what ought to be.  What we ought to be will emerge naturally if humanity is guided to gently embrace and care for the fragility of life in all its current forms and ways.

Until next time, stay faithful.


  








 

RELIGIOUS INTUITION

Intuition is a form of knowing and processing experience. With the development of writing and the evolution of systematic education, reliance on intuition has increasingly been diminished. Yet intuition continues to play a role in understanding our world and the universe.

In a fact-orientated world, reason is the dominant means for obtaining new knowledge.  We know because we reason, and we reason because we know.  Reasoning is very much a conscious, spiracle process that increases knowledge based on what is already known; new facts based on old facts, even should a new fact lead to disestablishing an old fact.

Intuition, on the other hand,  is more subtle and a less conscious process.  Intuition is frequently described as phenomenon; something beyond conscious reasoning.  Such an understanding, however, tends to minimize its utility and leads to an under-appreciation of its role in advancing knowledge.  Although intuition appears to "come out of the blue," out of nowhere, it relies on possessing a knowledge of concepts and context by which the intuitive experience is recognized.  As such, intuition is related to insight - a deeper understanding of a known subject gained through an unintended experience. The fundamental difference between intuition and reasoning is nothing more than intentionality.

Most discoveries, scientific and otherwise, frequently stem from a reasoned examination of an intuition on the part of the discoverer. Both Newton and Einstein had intuitive experiences in the form of unintended insights garnered from everyday occurrences that led them to reason how our universe works.  I speculate that theism arose from similar occurrences.  It is no wonder that theism is considered by some to be the prototype of science, a way of knowing our world.

Given this premise, it is not difficult to deduce that what we call religion today was intuitively derived from nature by our prehistoric ancestors.   It is easy to say this from a 21st  century perspective, but I feel it would be remiss to understate the immense impact this had on the development of our ability to reason. Consider the probability that our prehistoric predecessors lacked our ability to identify concept and context as such.  At best they worked with a rudimentary form of the differentiating paradigm I discussed in my last post. [See post on Religion].  Language itself was nascent and wouldn't fully evolve until writing emerged.  What our prehistoric ancestors likely possessed was an ability to understand difference and the connection between cause and effect.  What would not be understood for some time was how they were able to understand.  The fact is we still don't have a good grasp of why we possess understanding. To delve into that topic  further, I would recommend reading Sam Harris's book, "Waking Up." 

GETTING TO KNOW YOU

To further speculate, it seems reasonable that lacking a concept of one's own mind and having an extremely rudimentary sense of context led early humans to conclude that their emerging sense of knowing was being given to them from an "out-there-other."  The question of "How do I know?" was met with an "I don't know, but I know."  It's conceivable that this led to the concept of revelation; something being shown by an outside source.   Any knowledge that explained how and why things were the way they were, beyond simple cause and effect, had to come from somewhere or something.  This thought represents one of humankind's earliest intuitions derived from experience.  The question "How do I know " required an answer, and thus the divine other was intuited.

It was with the dawn of written language that reason and logic took shape.  This is not to say that reason did not exist before writing.  It did, but with writing, reason could be examined.  Prior to writing, reason or wisdom was an oral tradition that was handed down, and because it could not be stored outside of the mind, it became sacrosanct and inviolable. Questioning it was an anathema because it risked losing knowledge.  The residue of such inviolableness is still evident in theism today.  It is in written language that we finally were capable of storing wisdom and knowledge outside of one's memory. With writing we could examine oral tradition and our own thoughts.  We could question and fine tune them. This is exactly what took place in what the philosopher Karl Jaspers identified as the Axial Age, which roughly spanned a period in antiquity from 800 to 200 BCE.  This was the age when most of our modern understanding of religion and philosophy had their beginning.

What did not change, however, was the differentiating paradigm of religion.  This remained current and became highly evolved, leading to divergent paths of philosophy in comprehending our universe.  At one time, philosophy and theology would have been impossible to distinguish. With writing came the ability to make discrete distinctions that could be reasoned logically.  It is interesting to note that as written language advanced, revelation, as it was likely understood prior to the Axial Age, becomes less and less a player in our way of understanding of knowledge, itself.  With the arrival of Aristotelian logic there came a clear demarcation between science and theism.   What was once revelation increasingly became identified as intuition.  Revelation, as a term, still has a strong hold on the religious.  Modern religions continue to cling to the notion of revelation, particularly  monotheistic religions.   In my opinion this is more the result of clinging to a traditional understanding than it is a refutation of intuition. 

THEOLOGY AND THEORY

There exists a linguistic divergence between what is considered secular and sacred which frequently becomes the source of confusion and confutation.  Science and theistic religion, for example, frequently lock horns over terminology.  Yet both are based on an understanding of how and why things are the way they seem based on intuitive insights that resulted from divergent paths of reasoning and knowledge each took. 

Both science and theism are a mirrored reflection of each other.  Theistic religion in its consideration of a known intuitively reasons an unknown, whereas science in its consideration of an unknown intuitively reasons a known.  Theology and theory are related processes.   Interestingly, a study of both leads one to see that each embraces the concept of paradox within the differential paradigm of religion; that can be expressed in the following:  We agree that this is this, not this, and yet this. 

This paradigm is interestingly captured, albeit in a somewhat convoluted way, in Christianity's doctrine of the Trinity and described in similar terms by Quantum Mechanics understanding of light. For example, in the doctrine of the Trinity, The Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God, The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son, yet the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit is God.  In Quantum Mechanics we can talk about light as a particle or light as a wave. The light particle is not a light wave. The light wave is not a light particle; yet the light particle and light wave are both light. 

That divergence ultimately leads to convergence is reasoned from a religious intuition;  that what appears and acts differently proceeds from the insight that the concepts and contexts by which we determine difference is rooted in similarity.  If there were no such concept as appearance or no such context in which actions take place by which to determine what looks and act the same from what looks and acts different, we would not be able to make any intelligible distinctions.  "All is one" is a highly reasoned premise that proceeds from a  religious intuition found in both science and theism, that ultimately concludes that what is different is in essence the same.

I posited in my previous post that the religious impulse is found in every human activity, including science; that the need we have for each other in every field is premised on our mutual need for validation and a sense of congruence. Where scientific religion and theistic religion diverge is in their respective handling of mystery.  A prime example of this is the kerfuffle between various scientific and theistic groups over the origin of the universe.  From my perspective the difference between the two is not all that different.

Stepping way back from the debate and listening from a far distance, once can hear the same thing:  The universe we know today had a start from a single source. If you ask a scientific question, the universe came from single source, a particle known as a singularity.  If you ask a theological question, the universe came into being from a single source, a wave,  known as the Word of God.  Obviously, I have simplified this horribly and recognize that both in the fields of science and theology there exist extremely divergent theories and theologies regarding this topic, but my point is that standing from a distance there is a sameness to it all by which we can formulate our differences in it all.

In purist terminology, science attempts to extract mystery from the known in order to increase understanding about ourselves and the universe.  Theism, on the other hand, imbues the known in a cloak of mystery as a means of understanding ourselves and the universe.  In my opinion, both views are needed, although I feel theism has become too reliant on traditional terminology that renders it appearing less relevant and at times acting irrelevant.  This is one of the reasons I tend to avoid using the terms mystery or mysticism when discussing theistic topics because of its tendency to be interpreted as something being inexplicable.

A CLOSING NOTE

I feel a need to apologize for this pedantic post.  I appreciate those who bear with me during one of these forays of mine into speculation.  There is a reason for my doing so. From time to time I see a need to use terminology that is perhaps unfamiliar to some, such as, "religious impulse," "the differentiating paradigm." and "religious intuition."   Having mentioned them here, I hope to proceed to a more in depth discussion on theism and, in particular, Christianity.

Until next time, stay faithful.























  

 








     











    

RELIGION

In past posts, I have stated that human beings are a religious animal, Homo Religiosus.  By that, I mean to say that we humans possess a religious impulse; that we are prone to be religious and create religions. My definition  of what a religion is will be probably broader than most. 

In my understanding of religion, any ideological belief that results in forming a community of like-minded individuals around it is likely to acquire the accoutrements or the patina of religion; such as, the development of  common understanding or language of a core belief, rituals in the form of expected conduct, and symbols - emblems, flags, logos, and seals. 

Religion provides identity by distinguishing between same and different or, to put it in the language of theistic religion, differentiating between what is sacred and secular.  In other words, religions are largely about who's in and who's not based on mutual agreement and disagreement about who does or does not identify with a religious community's set of ideological beliefs.

Any "ism" is prone to become religious, and all ideological beliefs can be defined as an "ism."  For example, monotheism, atheism, polytheism, spiritualism, liberalism, conservatism, patriotism, nationalism, fascism, capitalism, socialism, communism, globalism, nihilism, etc. all possess or have the potential to possess religious attributes. If one were to examine any of these "isms," one would find a multitude of varieties of each in the form of organized denominational  affiliations.

THE RELIGIOUS IMPULSE

So - Why are we religious?  There are numerous books written on this subject which alleviates me from providing a definitive answer.  I doubt that one truly exists. 

Philosophers, anthropologists, historians, psychologists have all weighed in on this topic.  If I were to recommend a couple of books, I would start with Karen Armstrong's, "The History of God," and Robert Wright's "The Evolution of God" as a couple of good places to start.  If interested in a more philosophical understanding of the religious impulse check out works by Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche, William James, and Reinhold Niebuhr to mention just a few.

If I were to reduce this complicated topic to its bare essentials, I would say that the religious impulse derives from a deep human need we all have, and that is, "We need each other."

Why?

Human beings cannot exist in total isolation. 

We would have disappeared eons ago if weren't for our religious impulse.  The recognition of needing each other is rooted in our need to feel safe, and we feel safest when we are dealing with something familiar, and what's most familiar to us is us.

The religious impulse is driven by our ability to identify what is same and what is different.

In order to have familiarity, however, we must be able to distinguish between what is and isn't familiar.  As the human population became more diverse, more populous, separated and different, the sense of "us" became more diverse. We began to see differences in us, racial, cultural, linguistic, and in such categorizations as poor/rich and strong/weak.

This differentiating paradigm is the foundation on which all religion is built.  From this primal need to differentiate was developed our concepts and sense of family, tribe, community, and nation.  The religious impulse is evident in every aspect of human social development.  Eventually, the religious impulse became paradoxical.  This is particularly noticeable in theistic religions who have been able to export their cores beliefs across the boundaries that divide us by seeing and pointing out connections between all things, same and different.

THEISTIC RELIGION

Theistic or spiritually-based religion has been around since prehistoric times.  I can only use conjecture to how it came into being.  The sense of same and different that I mentioned above seems to have led to an intuition that is likely based on human experience.  If safety is at the root of our need for each other, what happens when the safety net of "each other" no longer provides us the sense of safety we need?  Being the differentiating creatures we are allowed us to formulate abstract concepts which, in turn, led us to the question, "Is there something more than us?  Is there something we can turn to that will provide us with the sense of safety we need?"

That human beings everywhere, in quite different parts of the world, were able to identify the "Out-There- Other" that eventually led to the concept of the gods and goddesses of antiquity is an interesting phenomenon. There appears, to me at least, an intuitive human sense that we're not alone, and that we, that life itself, is connected to something larger than self, the family, the tribe, the community, the nation, the world, and in more recent times the universe; that there is more to life than this life.

This sense of an  "Out-There-Other" was hard to identify and, as has been observed by scholars of various sorts, became imbued with qualities we could identify with.  Thus, many of the early gods and goddesses have very human  or nature-orientated attributes.  What made them purely other was they possessed one quality we do not have, immortality but that's a discussion for another day.

Theistic religion eventually offered us a sense of meaning, purpose, and safety that extended beyond the here and now.  It also offered us lenses by which we could examine ourselves, our similarities, our differences, and our behavior in a semi-detached way.  This remains one of the most important aspects of theistic religion; our ability to see ourselves objectively.

It gave us explanations of how we came to be and why we're here.  It provided us with a collective sense of morality, obligation, and responsibility.  It gave us a source(s) to go to when faced with impossible situations that no known human could address; to give us pause when faced with chaos . In essence, it provided a sense of familiarity in an increasingly diverse world.   In essence, it made us feel safe.

Theistic religion is evolutionary.  As theism became more spiritually abstract, it imbued the transcendent with feelings.  Attributes such as love, anger, fear, longing, trust, compassion became dominant attributes of the god concept. Over time, theism gave us philosophy and an understanding that there are many things larger than any single number of things, such as truths.

SECULAR RELIGION

Secular religion is not theistic or atheistic.  Atheism, as understood here, is not a secular religion.  I consider atheism a theistic religion on the basis that in order to be an atheist a person who doesn't believe in god(s) must have at least have a concept of god he or she is denying.  In essence, atheists have an ideological belief about god, which, in my book, makes them theists.  Atheists are prone to be religious and help explain the impulse of religion.  I would suggest reading works by atheists in general, and would recommend Greg Epstein's, "Good without God," and "Religion for Atheists" by Alain de Botton.

Secular religion possesses many of the attributes of theistic religion, but it is not based on theism.  Again, the paradigm of differentiation applies in secular religion as it does in theistic religion.  A prime example of a secular religion is patriotism.  Every country in the world encourages its citizens to be patriotic.  Patriotism is almost on par with the sacred in many parts of the world.  In some nations there is little differentiation between "God" and "Country."

In patriotism we see all the accoutrements of religion; shared core ideological beliefs in the form of creeds, loyalty pledges, and civil obligations; in rituals in the forms of reverential ceremonies and a competitive spirit, and in symbols in the form of flags and emblems.  In the United States, for example, treatment of the flag is almost an object of worship.  I recently read that the United States is the only country where its flag is prominently displayed in churches, sometime right next to the altar itself.  It is my understanding such practices are not found in churches of other countries, even those who have state supported churches. 

To give you an example of how wedded theistic and secular religion is in the United States, I once attended a funeral of young man who took his own life.  The funeral was held in a evangelical Christian church.  Toward the end of the service, the minister decided to have an altar call in the hope of bringing some of this young man's (supposedly) wayward friends and opportunity to come to Jesus.  What caught my attention in his encouragement to come to Jesus was that as he was inviting them, he distinctly pointed to the US flag he was standing next to instead of  Christianity's traditional symbol, the cross, which was prominently displayed in the front of the church.  It wouldn't surprise me to see somebody genuflect when seeing the US flag and salute the Christian cross.

Of course, this type of chauvinistic patriotism isn't unique to the US.  In so called secular nations that identify themselves as strictly non-theistic; such as, The Peoples Republic of China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union, ideological beliefs based on communism in combination with nationalism created extreme forms of secular religions; where the leaders of these nations became literally larger than life as illustrated in their statues, huge portraits, and in the development of larger than life emblems and displays of huge public ceremonies that convey their might which appeals to our need for safety and their need for loyalty. 

Of course, nationalism and patriotism are not the only forms of secular religions; they are just the most obvious and readily illustrate the human proclivity for identifying same and difference at the secular level.     

RESPONSIBLE RELIGION

There is a growing number of interfaith dialogues amongst theistic religions.  Theistic or spiritually based religions are increasingly identifying shared beliefs that are crossing age-old  theistic boundaries. While the rituals and symbols may be different, we are finding that basic beliefs are not so different; that there are distinct common threads shared by all.  This has created a pushback by some who fear that relativism will eliminate difference, and in a few situations is creating a violent mentality towards the other in our midst. 

There is a lingering fear in human nature of becoming too much alike or becoming to big for our britches.  As we find common ground ideologically, there is a current that attempts to pull us away from pure unification. The irony is that we do not feel safe in large numbers.  We can actually feel isolated, different, or anonymous when involved with a large number of people.

I doubt that we can ever truly become unified in the sense of all having the same ideas and beliefs.  Our sense of being individuals and needing to belong is important, particularly in theistic religions.  This is less true of secular religion.

Recently, there has been discussion over the contribution religion has to the violence we see and experience today, especially in the form of the terrorism associated with radicalized theism.  Most recognize that theistic religions are not the cause of violence throughout the world, but I would argue that the impulse of religion can lend itself to violence, can get stuck on seeing too much difference, especially by extreme fundamentalist group who attempt to counter this perspective by wanting to make everything the same and familiar by insisting that safety can only be accomplished through conformity with their ideological beliefs.

Why violence a religious problem.

Violence is a religious problem because an increasing number of people in the world no longer feel safe.

To create a sense of balance or equanimity by those who feel extremely vulnerable and unsafe has led some to become extremists, to seize the moment; particularly,  in vulnerable areas in order to engage in activities that will level the playing field by making the rest of the world feel as unsafe as they.  They are trying to combat what might be considered the "Big Brother" mentality they oppose by adopting a "little brother" mentality in order to do what many little brothers do, become holy terrors.

The reality is, as a whole, we have not heeded the prophetic warnings of our age. The prophecies, the ignored obvious, that economists, social scientist, and natural scientists have been telling us for some time have gone unheeded for too long.

What they have been telling us is this: 

* People feel unsafe when they cannot afford the basics of life.
* People feel unsafe when they sense a loss of identity or feel demeaned by others. 
* People everywhere are not safe because we have not taken necessary measures to prevent natural
   disasters that are becoming increasingly prevalent due to human activity; such as, global warming.

We have a tendency to become focused on being different in a fast-growing global world, especially in more stable protected environments where there is increasing fear of encroachment by an unstable other.  Fear of this sort, ironically tends cause us to ignore our primal religious impulse, "We need each other." 

Secular religion, in my opinion, is far more likely to ignore our primal religious impulse and become violent because of its tendency to eliminate what it fears; namely, the different and unfamiliar.

The primary ritual of any secular religion is competition and the elimination of a perceived rival.

Secular religion is more likely to become Machiavellian because has not as evolved as far as theistic religion has in embracing the paradoxical.  We only have to look at the genocides that have taken place in the 20th century and that are taking place today to see the reality of this. We have only to look at the racial divide that is growing once again throughout the world.  We have only to feel the effect of ignoring our imprint on nature to see that secular religion, by in large, is fueled by greed and a sense of exceptionalism.

On the other hand, theistic religion is more likely to respond favorably to our modern day prophets. They have, in general, evolved to the point where they see the same in the different, to see the interconnection and the interplay between of all life on this planet.  They understand that humans, as a whole, cannot exist in total isolation. 

To study this further, I would recommend reading works by Rabbi Jonathan Sack, "The Dignity of Difference" and "The Great Partnership."  Also, I would recommend works  written by Thich Nhat Hanh; such as, "Living Buddha, Living Christ."  There are, of course, brilliant works written by theists of every type. 

That people are leaving organized theistic religions is not because they are non-theists.  In recent poll in the US, for example, it is estimated that the number of "nones" or the non-affiliated has risen to 20 percent of the Unite States population, but that those who state a belief in the spiritual or in God remains closer to 85 percent or better.  I would bring the latter number a bit higher because I would include professed atheists as noted before.

That people are leaving organized theistic religions, I feel, is largely due to the fact that these organizations have too often merged with secular religion, have to often become the pawns of the secular, and have from time to time adopted the means of secular religion, have become competitive and have seen themselves as being exceptional.

Fundamentalism of all sorts is more in tune with secular religion than theistic religion, due to its inability to fully understand the differentiating paradigm of the religious impulse and the role of paradox. Fundamentalism tends to turn the god-concept into an idol; a concretized ideology that has no room for any grayness.   Theism will not go away.  In fact, it is needed to explicate and understand the differentiating paradigm of our religious impulse and to help the world understand paradox.

THE NEXT RELIGIOUS NARRATIVE

The fact is all religion is human, and all humans have a religious impulse. It seems likely that the next religious narrative is being written by economists, mathematicians, and scientists, but in order to understand that narrative fully there is a need for philosophical and the theological perspectives to prevent it from becoming non-human and unfamiliar. 

When human beings entered into space, for the first time, we were given a god's-eye view of our planet.  For the first time, we were seeing what we could only imagine before; the goodness and beauty of creation.  For the first time, we were given a hint of how small, how vulnerable, how isolated we truly are.  For the first time, we were given the opportunity to fully grasp how different and unique we are within the breadth of the universe and how much alike we are because of its expanse - how, more than ever, we need each other.

Until next time, stay faithful. 

    





























 

MESSIAH, CHRIST, OR ... ?

Since we're still in the Easter Season, I wanted to take a short excursion into what became of Jesus after the Easter event. As mentioned in other posts, much of Christianity is the result of events that occurred after Jesus' death.  In this post I will take a closer look at what was made of Jesus shortly after his death and how this perspective has changed over time.

QUESTIONS

One can only imagine what Jesus' disciples went through after his death. It was undoubtedly a traumatic time in which their beloved leader and friend was brutally taken from them. In their loss it's conceivable they felt a stronger connection to each other, but in this new sense of connection questions emerged:  "Now what?  Do we go our separate ways? Do we stick together? If we stay together, what reason do we have for doing so?"  Answers to these questions emerged quickly as Jesus' life and death took on new meanings.

It is possible that in this highly charged atmosphere of intense trauma, loss, and guilt the thought of Jesus being dead becomes unthinkable.  Some of his disciples claimed seeing Jesus alive. As discussed in other posts, there is an ethereal component to these visions which to the modern mind argues for plausible explanations that wouldn't have crossed the minds of those who has such experiences at that time.  For those who experienced visions and those who heard of them, they were real and led them to conclude Jesus lives.  This conclusion becomes the premise upon which a community of Jesus followers is formed. 

But the questions don't stop there.  They know who Jesus, the man was, but what were they to make of him now, after his crucifixion and in the light of the claim that he has been resurrected?  Was he still a man?  What was he?  What is he?   Was he a prophet?  Was he the Messiah?  Is he the Messiah?  The resurrection story of Jesus being raised from the dead by God doesn't really answer those questions.  Not everyone who believes that Jesus is resurrected sees the resurrected Jesus and in short order he is no longer "physically" seen by anyone, as he is reported to have ascended to heaven. In spite of the all the gospels' attempt to assure us that he was physically resurrected there is virtually no verifiable proof that he was.

Since Jesus was no longer physically present, the only way "to see" the resurrected Jesus was and is to believe he is resurrected.  The intensity of this belief obviously attracted many followers and the community of believers in the resurrection grew quickly.  At this early stage in the development of Christianity, I don't think the question of Jesus being God crossed anyone's mind.  The first members of this community were Jews and they still possessed the Judaic mindset of an imageless God 

So, what was Jesus?

Jesus fit the job description of prophet.  I don't think anyone then or now would have a problem with that.  Jesus definitely championed the cause of the poor, the oppressed, and the human race in general.  As such, Jesus fit the tradition of the minor prophets; such as, Amos and Micah more than he fit the prophetic profile of Moses or Elijah which the gospel writers go out of their way to portray him as.  The problem with a pure designation of Jesus being a prophet is that the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures were warning people to clean up their act or else face impending doom. 

At Jesus' time things could have become gloomier or doomier.  The whole land was already under Roman rule.   As such, I don't think the Jesus being merely a prophet appealed to his followers.  If Jesus was a prophet, then he becomes no more than one of many prophets killed by his own people.

Although what Jesus taught was nothing new than what had been taught throughout the generations of Judaism, he brought them to life in a way that was different.  He preached an interconnectedness with God and with each other, including enemies, that was in itself liberating and redeeming. His sense of closeness to God and with all human beings set him apart from other prophets and indicated he must be something more. 

Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God, not the Kingdom of Judah or the Kingdom of Israel.  The kingdom Jesus was referring to was not of this world. The Kingdom of God was transcendent.  If his followers didn't get that before his death, they were certainly getting it after his death and you will find Jesus telling Pilate just that in John 18:36.  This notion of the Kingdom of God becomes an important facet in salvation-based theology because if Jesus was trying to be a king of anything else, he failed.  I should note that when Jesus mentions the Kingdom of God, God is understood to be the king, not Jesus, but that was soon to change. 

THE MESSIAH

Of course there is a problem with Jesus being a messiah.  He didn't really fit that job description very well either.  After all, Jesus did not liberate Judah and Galilee from foreign domination, but I think within the Judaic mindset of Jesus' followers they didn't have a better descriptor available for who Jesus is.  Jesus was viewed as a messiah because the message he both gave and demonstrated was in itself liberating and offered redeeming qualities even in the midst of being dominated by a foreign power.  Jesus' teachings presented a new perspective of what God's Kingdom meant.

In the final analysis, a person like Jesus was either a rabbi , a prophet , or a messiah.  In short order they settle on Jesus being a messiah, and within a very short time he becomes THE MESSIAH who lives and reigns with God the Father. 

If Jesus is THE MESSIAH, he is also considered THE SON OF GOD.  Jesus talked about God as his Father and our Father (as in the Lord's Prayer). The fact that a messiah would be considered a son of God becomes in Jesus' case radicalized into his being THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. 

Why radicalized?

Because in the Roman Empire, the emperor was considered the Son of God.  Claiming Jesus to be the only-begotten Son of God, theoretically knocks the emperor off his divine throne. You can see how this teaching contains a revolutionary undercurrent to it.  In fact, the early Christians took to devising symbols for this new movement.  Christian graffiti was just that graffiti.  Christian historians have suggested that early Christians used these symbols to identify who was a Christian and who wasn't.  For instance, it is well-known that the early Christians used the cryptic symbol of the fish to identify who was a member of this Kingdom of Christ, ICTHUS, Greek word whose letters stand for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, our Savior."  It also was the astrological symbol of Pices and considered by some the astrological time in which Jesus was born and whose birth brought about the dawn of the Picean age; the Age of Faith.  I doubt that the ICTHUS symbol would have fooled wary imperial officials as to its association with Christians.  Like gang graffiti of today, Christian graffiti was there to notify members of their presence in a given area, and perhaps taunt the powers that be. 

I don't believe the early Christians saw themselves as militant revolutionaries, but I think they understood the revolutionary undercurrent of their message which had an appeal to those who saw themselves as oppressed by Roman rule.  In fact, I believe this was an early form of passive resistance of which the Roman Imperium was wary of and led emperors and local officials to engage in brief periods of persecution.  In the fourth century, Constantine would exploit this undercurrent to his advantage in order to gain the imperial throne.

THE CHRIST

As Christianity became less connected to Judaism and increasingly Hellenized and influenced by Platonism, Jesus, THE MESSIAH becomes JESUS, THE CHRIST.  The terms "Christ" and "Messiah" mean pretty much the same thing, "anointed one."  In my opinion, however, the use of the term Christ has come to mean something more than Messiah does in Judaism.  THE CHRIST has become THE KING, part of the Trinitarian God-head.  In fact, in the Christian liturgical calendar, the last Sunday of the Church Year is called "Christ the King Sunday" to this day.

Another difference is that in Judaism there exists the possibility that there could be more than one messiah and that some already have appeared or modeled what the messiah should be like.  Moses, for instance, fits the bill of a messiah as does Joshua, Gideon, David, and the prophet Elijah - people who helped God redeem  and restore Israel from oblivion.   The Persian king, Cyrus, was also called a messiah because he returned the Jews of the Babylonian diaspora back to Judah and helped reconstruct the second Temple.   

The Messiah in Judaism would be considered a son of God, but not God. The Messiah in the Judaic tradition of Passover is that person who will be announced by Elijah.  Elijah has his own seat at every Seder table, but (as yet) hasn't shown up. I get a feeling that many, if not most, Jews don't expect him to.  If Elijah doesn't show, the messiah doesn't show up. 

The Elijah story has become a mythic insertion into the Passover story. There was no Elijah at the first Passover that took place in Egypt, which is what the Feast of Passover commemorates.   The Messiah in Judaism has, in my opinion, become an archetypal figure (of sorts) reflecting the perpetual hope and longing for peace that is so beautifully rendered in the Judaic observance of this tradition.

The archetypal sense of the Messiah is mimicked in Christianity's theology of the Second Coming of Christ, but the Second Coming doesn't exactly equivocate the messianic sense of the Passover narrative.  For example, as mentioned above, The Messiah, in Judaism, is unknown, and some rabbis have warned that should someone say he is the Messiah run away as fast as you can.  In fact Jesus says the same thing (using the Greek term Christ in most translations) in Matthew 24:23 and in Mark 13:21, reflecting this rabbinic wisdom.

In Christianity we know who THE CHRIST is:  Jesus is THE CHRIST.  Jesus, the man, however, is different than Jesus, the Christ.  This can be easily deduced by an unbiased reading the synoptic gospels.  Jesus, the man, is the historical Jesus, and Jesus, the Christ, is the mythic or cosmic Jesus that extends beyond the person of Jesus as a male human. 

OR...

There is another way to understand Jesus.  I do not see Jesus as a messiah or as THE CHRIST. These titles were assigned to him by others, including the direct quotes attributed to Jesus.  Jesus can be defined as a religious humanist. This perspective wouldn't have been conceived of at the time in which Jesus lived. This perspective is one that emerges from looking back at what Jesus taught and what Jesus did two millennia later.

As a religious humanist, Jesus is understood to be a unique human being who possessed a profound intuitive understanding of the divine in natural existence; the divinity in being that is neither supernatural nor supra-natural.  Nature itself is a divine state ("Consider the lilies of the fields", and "the birds of the air.," said Jesus).  Life, itself, is a divine occurrence and human beings are the highest form of this divine, natural life form on the planet Earth.  I don't know that Jesus would have or could have agreed with the way I'm talking about it today, but I don't believe he saw himself as a messiah or as an exception to normal human existence as he is frequently portrayed in Christian scripture.

Jesus possessed the ability for seeing people and situations the way they were.  Jesus was a product of his age and used the conventions and mindsets of his age to get his message across.  Some of what he said and did sounds foreign to us today, but his message is very relevant in any age.  Scholars will debate whether Jesus was educated or uneducated.  I think  such debates are irrelevant. 

Jesus obviously was brilliant, but I think his brilliance was the result of an intuition about life.  He was obviously knowledgeable about Hebrew Scriptures.  Whether he knew how to read or write is open for debate, but life itself is a great teacher and intuition is one of the great means of learning and knowing.

We can assume many things about Jesus, because none of us knows the real-time Jesus.  Even Paul didn't know the real Jesus.  Paul knew an experience of Jesus as the Christ, but he knew little of the real-time, pre-Christ Jesus.  In fact the Acts of the Apostles and some of Paul's own epistles reveal there was a conflict between him and the other apostles about that fact.

Like Paul, we don't know what it was like to be around Jesus before his death, and stories about him or about anyone rarely conveys a real sense of what another person was really like.  So at best, after two thousand years, we have a traditional understanding of Jesus based on the Christian scriptures that were written anywhere between twenty to eighty years after Jesus' death.  On top of that it is clear that many of them have been tampered with or editorialized to reflect a specific theological agenda about Jesus as the Christ. 

I, personally, find that the orthodox tradition we have today, known as Christianity, to be based on scant and spurious information.  On the other hand, what attracted Jesus' followers to the point that they could not let him go is what intrigues me about Christianity.  It is what fascinates me about the concept of God and religion as a whole.  As editorialized and doctored as the synoptic gospels are, I feel the writers and editors were sincere in trying to portray who the real-time Jesus was.  Although we can never really know that person, we can make some deductions based on what these gospels say. 

Until next time, stay faithful.