RELIGIOUS SINGULARITY

THINGS THAT POP INTO MY BRAIN

In my last post, I ended by mentioning the possibility of there being such a thing as a "Religious Singularity."   After I published that post, I thought to myself, "Norm, just exactly where did that come from?  Why did that pop into your head, and what do you even mean by that?"   To be honest, thoughts like that do just pop into my brain and then I begin to think about what I said.  In that sense, my posts are more often than not an opus of intuition or what one might call informed intuition.   So with these questions still in my mind, I thought I would pause to explain or try to explain what religious singularity means. 

By now any regular reader of my posts understands that my use of the term "religion" is extremely broad; so broad in fact that it encompasses almost every aspect of human activity whether one is of a theistic or secular mindset.  I believe humans are prone to be religious, homo religioso,  to systemize whatever ideological belief they share with others, whether it be theistically based or secularly based.  In fact, I would say we all posses both a secular and theistic religious perspective with a preferential emphasis on one or the other as being what one means by religion.  We humans tend towards discrimination; that is, separating out what it is we believe or don't believe, what it is we have in common and don't have in common, what makes us unique and or what makes us similar. This ability  is as old as human intelligence. 

The term "singularity" may seem a bit misplaced when talking about religion, as singularity frequently refers to a mathematic or scientific term or of things being distinct or possessing a unique nature.  Singularity is also a term used by  Ray Kurzweil and his prediction that there will come a time, in the not too distant future, where the merger of mankind with mankind's creations, machines, trans-humans will occur.  It is perhaps, in Kurzweil's concept of merger or crossing into a new way of being that is similar to what I have in mind when talking about a religious singularity.  Let me be clear, however, that I'm not talking about man and machines, but rather a much different merger of sorts, a merger of the vast array of human experiences, ideas, perspectives and thoughts as defining the complexity of what it means to be human in a way that does not diminish or violate the uniqueness and distinct character of those experiences, ideas, perspectives and thoughts. 

THE PARADOX OF ONE

In all religion, secular or theistic, there runs a thread that talks about oneness or one.  Almost every theistic religion, regardless of the number of gods or divinities ultimately gets to the one in which everything resides; that being in which we live, move and have our being as the  apostle Paul quoted in the Book of Acts.  In secular religion, such as found in the United States, this is expressed in the  expression, "Ex Pluribus Unum," "From the many one."  That this phrase was put in the Latin gives it that theistic feel, but it should be understood as a secular creed or aspiration rather than a theistic one. It is, nevertheless, rightly understood to be a religious creed or aspiration. Above all, religion is about paradox whether one is talking about secular or theistic religion.  E. Pluribus Unum is an expression of paradox.  While the differentiating paradigm is found in all religions, religion ultimately moves towards oneness, towards what it is we have in common.  In my opinion, religion as a whole must move away from the perennial questions of "Why" and "What happens next"  to the more urgent questions, "What now" and "How."  Each theistic religion in its own way has answered the why question and the what next question that are dependent on belief.  What is desperately needed now are acts of faith in seeking to answer the what now and how questions.


A CHANGING WORLD

My wife and I have just returned from a Mediterranean vacation that lasted roughly three weeks. Every time we travel long distances, I am mindful of how much our world has changed, how much smaller it has become, how much more in focus it is becoming.  What would have taken weeks and months to get to where we travelled took us only hour from our home in middle of the United States to Venice, Italy.  I suffer jet lag because my body has not had the time to adjust to the time changes that occur so quickly when traveling by air.  In some ways my jet lag serves as a metaphor for the fact that our technology exceeds our ability to mentally catch up to it. 

Our world is smaller, and in its becoming smaller, we encounter both diversity and similarity on a scale that is breathtaking.  The world is a changing place, a place of many crossroads interlinked by travel both real and virtual, not to mention our ability to communicate with others around the world at the speed of light.  Technology is advancing at an extremely fast pace and we are utilizing devices and innovations our great grandparents would have thought as sheer fantasy.

In some ways it remains illusionary in that it too is sucked into the differentiating paradigm that exists between real and virtual, that our minds have not yet totally grasped.  In virtual reality, the differentiating paradigm is more pronounced, in my opinion.  I am not just talking about games that allure the juvenile mindset, but the virtual "truth telling," the sound bytes of information that remove the burden of having to think.  This is for me is the greatest challenge that the internet poses for people, the illusion that everything on the net contains a kernel of truth and the allurement that I can find an answer to all my questions, all my needs through an internet search engine.

With all theses advances, however, we have yet to come to grips with who we are and what to do with ourselves.  We are poised to merge with our technological creations without knowing who we are.  Many intelligent and wise individuals are worried that our technology is advancing faster than our ability to understand its ramifications.  Some are quick to dismiss theistic religion as pointless, yet, to my knowledge they have not bothered to consider the void that would be created by its absence.  We are in some sense so worried about the harm that is done by humans on the environment that we sometimes fail to take time to understand our environment, our human nature, that in my opinion is best examined through the lens of theism. Until we come to grips with the human environment and the diversity it offers, we are ill suited to save anything else. 

BRIDGING THE GAPS

It is easy to point out the flaws of theistic religion, but secular religions is just as flawed if not more so in its supposed rationalism that negates the need of an outside other, the need for a mechanism to observe ourselves objectively in the light of the paradox that is represented in the concept of the divine. The go-it-alone mentality that is evident in some secular religions exposes a lack of understanding the need for objective observation. Apart from psychoanalysis, secular religion has no lens by which to examine the human environment. It's denigration of theism strikes me as an act of willful ignorance, if not arrogance.

I recently read an article in Huffington Post by Joey Savoie, entitled "What makes the New Atheists So Charitable?"  In this article, he discussed Effective Altruism (EA) that is a charitable movement amongst the New Atheists.  What struck me in this article is that what they are defining as EA is nothing new and can be found in almost every theistic religion.  The article quoted Sarte that morality, 'comes from within and grow outwardly.'"  This is something I can readily agree with, but it is hardly something new or something that Sarte came up with.  This concept is well established in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures and it serves to remind me and others that what New Atheists are trying to promote as a new way of seeing things is rather saying something that's been around for ever without the need for the concept of god.

I agree with the article that goodness is part of what we humans are very capable of on our own, that that there no longer exists a need for a god concept for humans to be good.  Ironically, Jesus taught the same thing some two thousand years ago.  Goodness has always been a human capability, but I would remind New Atheists or any other form of atheism that the god they do not believe in, most sincere and informed theists don't believe in either, and it is why I consider atheism a theistic religion.

As I said in other posts, I have an appreciation for atheistic thought, but am far from convinced that they are offering anything new, and in fact I find them limited in their perspective and appreciation of diversity of thought and perspective offered by other theistic religions.  What I do appreciate is their willingness to try find a moral path without the rigid control of some theistic religions, to remove the training wheels, as it were, that many theistic religions impose as being necessary to ensure morality and proceed in a more liberated fashion.  Frankly, I don't think "God" objects.
 
Ancient theistic religions have provided us with various answers to the perennial question, "Why?" and have attempted to define "Who" we are.  Secular religion, for the most part has ignored these perennial questions and have contented themselves that answering the question "how" we got to be here and "what" we're made of as sufficient - that science and technology is all that is needed to improve our world.  Atheism, by and large, tends to look secular in this regard, but I still maintain that lingering behind the question of how to be moral is the perennial questions why, who are we and the merging questions that all religions must face, "What next" and "How."

I am hopeful that in our current, very violent world this awareness is growing; that there is a greater need for dialogue; the sharing of diverse thoughts and perspective than at any other time in our history; that there is a need for a paradoxical merger and blending of thought, idea, and perspective that permits adaption while maintaining the uniqueness and distinctness of their origins.  This is what I mean by Religious Singularity.

Until next time, stay faithful.


     

MONOTHEISTIC MELTDOWN

In my last post, I posited a possible merger between humanistic and theistic ideologies.  Before doing so, however, I would like to give my reasons for doing so.

Consider the world's two largest theistic religions, Christianity and Islam.  It is estimated that there are over two billion Christians and a little over one and one half billion Muslims. The third largest group related to the study of religious categories is called the unaffiliated or the "nones" with over one billion people and growing.  What is significant is that neither Christianity nor Islam are growing numerically.  In fact, they are bleeding members to the unaffiliated.

This may not strike some as reason for concern, but I would contend that it is.  It is clear that large swaths of the world's nations are considered secular, where organized theistic religion does not appear to play a major social role as it once did.  I think such assessments are misleading.

For example, Europe is largely secular. Yet, monotheism is present at every turn.  People might not attend places of worship, but churches, temples and Mosques are everywhere.  In such a theistic atmosphere, it might be considered fashionable to act unaffected, but I would suggest such displays of being unaffected expose a troubling lack of awareness or disenchantment with the foundations these cultures have been built upon.

People may not like theistic religions, think them silly and see them as an anachronism.  Yet, I would say most would likely experience a sense of disorientation if theistic religion was completely gone or relegated to museum status.  In what other places could we gather to express a sense of gratitude or express such personal or collective despair, that would permit a cry for help, a reason to hope when no one on Earth seems to be listening?  What would serve to remind us there is more to us than merely the sum of us currently living?

In the United States, the first truly secular nation in the world, religion is protected by The Constitution's First Amendment.  Monotheism, particularly Christianity, has flourished since Europeans first settled here.  It is in the United States, however, that I feel the meltdown is happening in dramatic ways.

Religious freedom is front and center of public debate due to the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage.  The more people are becoming ardent about their right to practice their beliefs by discriminating against others in the name of God or as a matter of conscience, the more likely there will be a repulsive reaction to theism and monotheism in particular.

It is my contention that the largest and youngest monotheistic religions , Islam and Christianity, are poised to experience a rapid meltdown.

What do I mean by a meltdown?

Both of these religions have reached what I would describe as a saturation point.  They've grown about as big as they can grow, both in regard to adherents and theological expansion.

SATURATION POINT

Let's look at numbers to start with.  I read somewhere that there is estimated to be over thirty thousand different Christian denominations in the United States alone.  This may sound like an exaggeration, but walk down any street in Brooklyn, New York and start counting just the storefront churches and you'll get the idea.  In my hometown of less than fifteen thousand residents, here on the plains, there are twenty-four different churches listed, two of which are Roman Catholic and four Lutheran. I know there are probably a few more that aren't listed.

While these numbers might be viewed as indicating a robust interest in Christianity and an expansion of its theological implications, I would suggest quite the opposite; that what it represents is a rapidly advancing meltdown of not just Christianity, but monotheism as a whole. 

Try to think of it in terms of climate change or global warming where the two polar caps and the glacial fields are fragmenting into pieces before our very eyes.  These ice fields have not grown for a long time and have been shrinking perhaps for some time, but within the past couple of decades they have seen rapid meltdown due other environmental factors.  The same is true with the largest monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam.

In Islam, for example, any growth it is experiencing has been linked to a robust birth rate amongst Muslim families rather than to people converting to Islam.  The most notable converts to Islam are those who are joining radical Islamic terrorist groups.  Christianity, for the most part, is stagnant and is not seeing real growth.  There may be some who are re-converted back into Christianity, but its highpoint for evangelism was over one hundred years ago, during European colonization in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.  The reality is that there is no appeal for people to join these two religions, as they continue to be mired in conflict with their own denominations and with each other.

LOCKED IN A THEOLOGIC BOX

Theologically, Christianity, for example, hit its apex with Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. By the sixteenth century, Western Christianity was starting to fall apart in what is now known as the Reformation and the process continues to this very day.   Eastern Christianity largely became reduced by the conquests of the Ottoman Empire and later by the Russian Revolution.

The Protestant Reformation did nothing to change or advance theological thought in Christianity.  If one is a Lutheran or Calvinist, you will likely argue that it represented a seismic shift in theology, a return to Christianity's original message, but the reality is it didn't do anything of the sort.  What the Protestant Reformation established was a pattern of ever increasing reformations; seismic shifts in the structure rather than the substance of Western Christianity.  Christianity remained as it always was and is, salvation-based.

Some scholars are saying the current violent events in Muslim nations are comparable to the aftermath of the Protestant reformation.  Perhaps, but in the context of our modern, increasingly secular world, it does nothing to support the notion that Islam or any monotheistic religion is about peace.  What the rest of us see is the increasing disintegration of Islam into smaller fractious groups devoted to their version of Jihad.

PEOPLE OF AND BY THE BOOK

Monotheism is largely centered on subscribing to a scripture-based belief system.  In general, monotheists share a common title, "People of the Book,"   a term first coined by Muslims to describe their fellow monotheists, Christians and Jews.  This term then found acceptance by all.  For Judaism, it is the Hebrew Scriptures.  For Christians, it is the Holy Bible, and for Muslims, it is the Koran.

Evolution

What heated things up for monotheism; in particular Christianity, was evolution and the continuing advances in the various fields of science, anthropology, and historical research.  That evolutionary theory demonstrates there is no need of a deity to explain our existence flies directly in the face of theism as a whole.

If our existence is not reliant on a deity, does any deity exist? This becomes an extremely crucial question for monotheistic religions. If there is no God, what about everything that has been premised on God existing? What is the meaning of their sacred scriptures?

Polytheists, I feel, are less affected by evolutionary theory.  Polytheists are more likely to see their theism  in a metaphorical and mythological light.  Monotheists, for the most part, abhor the idea of mythology and insist that God is a transcendent being beyond the reach of our ken; that God is a being separate from other beings; that God knows us, but that we cannot know God apart from what sacred scriptures tells us.

In polytheism, to commune with the divine is to enter into ritual, into experience.  In monotheism, it is getting to know things about God and to intellectually believe in what the monotheistic scriptures say.  Therefore one of the greatest weaknesses of monotheism is its insistence that the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament, and the Koran are all directly inspired by God, and herein lies the challenge posed by evolution.

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God and a number of monotheistic scholars and theologians in all three major branches of monotheism have come to accept or claim to accept evolutionary theory as a possibility or as valid theory.  They have accepted that their scriptures are not inerrant, in the sense, that they must be taken literally.

Many have taken the view that the more unsavory portions of there scriptures by today's standards  be interpreted metaphorically, while sticking to the premise that a transcendent God created our universe and that their holy scriptures are what they are; holy, and are to be revered unlike other literary works.  In other words, they remain the Word of God.

This sounds like a suitable compromise on the part of monotheists, but I'm not sure who they are compromising with: atheists, agnostics, scientists, or other monotheists?
This crisis of faith, so to speak, has resulted in increasing amount of truth telling.

For example, in an effort to back away from the inerrancy of scripture issue in Christianity, religious scholars will cite sources; such as, the  first century apologist, Origen and the fourth century bishop Augustine as having made statements that the creation story in Genesis were not to be taken as historical fact.

Such attempts, however, have done little to address the problem monotheism is confronting.  Sticking by or with the "Book" is taking a toll on the relevancy of monotheism.

Fear

It is telling that religious leaders of major branches of monotheistic churches, synagogues, and mosques are expressing concern about losing members.  What their fears tell me is that such leaders are admitting a problem without naming it and forcing themselves to be content with stabilizing the silent exit that is taking place within all monotheistic faiths without having to address its theological roots.

Being People of the Book has placed monotheism in a textual box, if not a contextual box.  All of these monotheistic religions have volumes of other books based on a few holy books, but most are written as commentaries  or applications on what is found in them.

At one time these sacred scriptures appeared to address all that was necessary for living a good life now, with the added hope of receiving a better life, hereafter - At one time.  The result of keeping one's nose always in the Book, seeing everything through that Book, and reacting to what's happening by that book has proven to be nothing more than theological navel gazing.

MILITANCY

This sort of theological navel gazing frequently misses what's happening; especially the good things that take place, like medical and other scientific advances, which are usually treated with a degree of skepticism.  They tend to be reactive by focusing on the potential negative uses such innovations can bring about as opposed to finding the good. A case in point would be the issue of medical advances in women's health care; such as, birth control.

In fact, monotheism (particularly Christianity) has fomented what could be described as militant mission to fight such advances.  In addition, Christianity's major denominations, while promoting themselves as peacemakers, have a history of being complicit with the national interest in which they reside. If the said nation goes to war the churches are to bless them on their way.

There is no better illustration of this than the inscriptions placed on the army belt buckles of the Third Reich, "Gott mit uns" - "God with us."  To my mind, monotheism, more than any other type of theism is prone to exonerate the causes of war, and this fact has also taken a toll on its credibility of its role in peacemaking.  History haunts the monotheistic places of worship. Militancy appears readily embraced by fundamentalists as demonstrated in the Middle East and by Christians fundamentalists in the United States.

Another sign of meltdown is the feeling of being oppressed or persecuted.  This in turn allows adherents to feel besieged and acquire a militant mindset.  Again, this is currently evident in Muslim nations, who are fighting not only a geopolitical war but theopolitical war amongst each other.

Christians are no less prone to this mindset.  We certainly are seeing it amongst fundamentalists evangelicals who feel oppressed by the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage, who have a commitment to Christian Zionism and the protection of Israel against Muslim states, and who also can't wait for the end of the world.

A LATE AWAKENING

Like the world's increasing acceptance of global warming, Monotheistic religions are waking to its own meltdown, but as yet, this has not led them to do some sincere soul searching regarding the role and relevancy of their salvation-based theologies.  As yet, they have not directly taken a sincere look at finding a truthful approach with regard to their scriptures as being purely human works that attempt to explain the ineffable, works that were written long ago and do not apply to many of the situations faced today.

Until monotheism is capable of moving beyond its scriptures as the only functional resource for basing their theologies on, until it comes to understand that a theological emphasis on salvation in terms of having a chance at a blissful hereafter, it will continue to experience a meltdown and this will not be just a problem for them, it will be a problem for humanity as a whole.

I don't believe that monotheism will disappear, but I do see it being greatly reduced both in terms of adherents and its relevancy in addressing the problems facing the world if it cannot or will not move beyond its theological box.  The problem this poses for the world is that it will likely create a huge theopolitical void and a sense of social and cultural disorientation, which is evident in the religious rights distortion of history in the United States.

The biggest fear of this meltdown is that it could create a heightened sense of apocalyptic fervor in a nuclear age by those who feel threatened by the realization of their own irrelevancy. This, in turn, could bring about  an insane, self-destructive mindset bent on proving these holy books as inerrant by serving as an agent or agency to bring about a self-fulfilled prophecy aimed at ending it all on a global scale; in the concrete belief that it is  hastening the day of judgment and full salvation of the faithful.

In future posts, I plan on taking a look at the "nones," ritual, the religion of militarism, the intuitive side of science, and so on as means of setting the stage to discuss religious singularity.

Until then, stay faithful.
















 

FROM THEISM TO HUMANISM

I have written a great deal about Christianity and monotheism in this blog.  I have posited that humans are a religious animal; that we are the creators of religion and that religion, like all things on this planet, evolves.

RITUAL
In past posts I have explained that religion is not  limited to theism; that its most common trait is ritual. Ritual is found in every human activity, from how to do a proper ditch to how to theorize complex mathematical models that explain our universe. As such, reason is built upon a foundation of ritual.

As I write this post, I am aware of the ritual of writing; in particular, the use of English grammar. We don't think of such things as rituals, but in essence they are.  Rituals are all about defined disciplines which enable us to understand and make functional whatever it is that we are doing.  Religion, therefore, is a traceable element  in all human innovation.  

THEISM

It is not known when humans first intuited the notion of a divine out-there-other. We know that our prehistoric ancestors were religious because even our distant cousins, the Neanderthal, engaged in some form of burial ritual.  Whether they had a developed sense of an out-there-other or a sense that there is more to life than physical existence we cannot be sure, but what is important is to note that the religious impulse had been part of human development since the dawn of human kind.

I would posit that theism is a relatively recent human intuition of, let's say, the last thirty thousand years, give or take ten thousand. Most theistic religions today have their own mythic stories about creation and why we're here.  As old as these stories are, they probably are derived from oral traditions dating back only four to six thousand years ago.

How they came to be is lost to us.  When these stories were written down some two to three thousand years of being around, they were attributed to the inspiration or revelation of a divine entity.  Theism did not start as monotheism.  Theism applied the differentiating paradigm found in all religious endeavors.  In essence, theism is the outgrowth of the human recognition that there are forces beyond our control; that we are subject to or dependent on them.

POLYTHEISM

Polytheism was initially an expression of this recognition. In its most primitive forms, the forces of nature were assigned divine status.  Since these forces appeared animated and dynamic, they could be addressed ritually. Therefore we developed various sun gods, river gods, wind gods, storm gods, all in an effort to understand these forces and to appeal to and/or appease them.

Polytheism became highly evolved over time. The aspect of seeing  the out-there-other as a force of nature evolved to examine the forces at play in human nature which were then projected to an out-there-other status; to gods of love, gods of war, gods of the home, gods of planting, gods of harvest, gods of birth, gods of death, gods of wisdom, gods of communication, gods of healing, etc.

Polytheism eventually became, in essence, a way of a society to collectively examine the interplay of human behavior as projected in its narrative about its various gods and goddesses which magnified these human attributes because of the divine status given them.  Stories of their exploits, our collective exploits as an observing culture, were formulated to examine our sense of what is and why it is and what will become of us.  So true to life were these evolved deities that they were worshiped and celebrated in the hope of appeasing and manipulating forces they represented in our human experiences. 

Polytheism included room for the idea of a supreme divinity, one god to rule them all, or the idea of a supreme creative force in which all of life proceeded including the gods and by which all are sustained.  This was not strict monotheism, but it opened the door to the concept of a transcendent god or force; something that truly was the out-there-other that stood above and beyond the rest, including other gods and goddesses.  Hinduism is perhaps one of the oldest religions on the face of the earth that is a prime example of this, with hundreds of deities, but also the notion of Brahma, the one to which all eventually returns. 

MONTHEISM

Strict monotheism, as we know it today, can be traced to its origins in the Middle East, in particular, with the emergence of Judaism in the sixth century BCE during what is known as the Babylonian Captivity.  The Bible, particularly the Hebrew Scriptures, are an excellent source to see up close the evolutionary thought process that took place in the development of a strictly monotheistic view.  Strict monotheism may be an oxymoron because even in Judaism there exists different aspects of the one God that are treated differently.  For example, God is referred to as Elohim or Hashem or Yahweh, although Yahweh was never said and may be rooted in the identity of minor deity area associated with the Kingdom of Judah that was later identified and elevated to the one and only God of Abraham.  El, on the other hand, is linked to an ancient Canaanite deity. In Jewish literature, Elohim refers to God's creative aspect, Hashem refers to God's involvement with human affairs.  All, however, is part of the unnamed God YHWH.  The Hebrew Bible records the idea that there were other gods but that their God had primacy over the rest.

I'll give you my take on this.  God as referred to in strict monotheism started out as a family or tribal god, the God of Abraham.  Family deities existed from prehistory.  From its family origin it becomes tribal, then regional, and then identified with a particular kingdom.  In fact the God of Abraham seems to merge with other identified theistic traits found in other gods at the time.  What starts out as a family or paternal god that guides Abraham and his offspring, is at some point found on mountain top, Mt. Horeb by the Biblical character Moses.  Why the God of Abraham decided to reveal himself to Moses outside of Egypt is something to ponder, but I have a hypothesis as to why this may be the case.  It's revealing that God of Abraham, like most gods of antiquity was associated with geography and resided on mountain tops.  Family gods, were for the most part, minor deities that protected the home and its inhabitants.  Why God didn't travel with the tribe into Egypt could be the result of several possibilities in ancient thought.  Gods did not cross into territories of other gods.  In other words, the god of Abraham stopped short of entering the turf of other gods. 

If this were true,  it would have to be explained away with regard to the establishment of a strict monotheistic view.  The fact is there are very little, if any, historical facts to support that there was a Moses, that the tribes of Israel were in any way related, were in Egypt or were enslaved by them or that any of the events that took were mentioned in the first five books of the bible took place.  This is not say that the stories that evolved in what we now have as the Holy Bible did not have a historical basis, but rather there is no independent proof beyond these texts that they did.

It has been well established that these stories were derived from oral tradition and were not written down until centuries, if not millennia afterwards their alleged occurrences.  In essence, they became what I would refer to as a magnified narrative that loomed large in the social conscience of what would become Judaism.  This involved defining a means of getting from point A to point B.  Point A is that a god of Abraham, being merely one of many gods and goddesses, becomes at point B the God of Abraham, the one and only God in the entire cosmos. 

How did this happen?  History can helps us here because during the later part of the Kingdom of Judah, the late eighth or seventh centuries BCE these stories were being written in the small and troubled  Kingdom of Judah.  They were written after the Kingdom of Israel had been abolished and its inhabitant carted off by the Assyrians and who were either absorbed into that culture or annihilated.  It is suspected that much of what is known as the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament was written well into the second temple period approximately from 300 to 150 BCE. 

These written narratives reflect how the Kingdom of Judah was faced with the same possibility of annihilation as the Kingdom of Israel was by any number of emerging empires.  While the God of Abraham was likely understood as their primary god, YHWH  and the first Temple in Jerusalem recognized as his home, his divine palace on Earth, it housed the deities of allied kingdoms or other local traditions, which would not have been uncommon at the time. A temple was that god's court, if you will.  The Psalms and the Book of Job indicate that this thinking was familiar to people of that region at that time.

Two things occurred that would change this.  Being made a pawn of more powerful kingdoms who took advantage of Judah's weak position led to social uprising that involved a early form of nationalism and fueled by a xenophobia and a religious fervor that resulted in removing these foreign gods and goddesses, their priest, prophets and prostitutes and establishing that there was only one God, the God of Abraham, as the God of Judah, YHWH.  This puritanical movement led to a disastrous outcome for the Kingdom of Judah, but would give rise to one of the world's most enduring religions, Judaism.

One of the reasons I have come to this hypothesis it is based on the fact that in the First Book of Kings and First Chronicles, which likely predate the Torah with regard to any factual information they contain, tend to be an attempt at presenting a chronological depiction the kingdom of Israel and the later divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It should be noted also that these accounts were written and preserved from a Judaic perspective.

What is missing from these early accounts is that the Feast of the Passover is never mentioned in them.  It only shows up in one chapter of the Second Book of Kings and  Second Chronicles when this emerging religious nationalism is discussed.  The omission of this Feast of all Jewish feasts from much of "historical" accounts of the earlier unified Kingdom of Israel is glaring.  This is not to say it was not celebrated, but it certainly wasn't the feast it became during and after the Babylonian Captivity  when the Torah was being written and revised. 

As such, the Babylonian Captivity becomes the most formative event in the development of Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures.  There is little doubt that after the first Temple in Jerusalem was purged of its idolatrous status, that the temple itself was seen as the home, the dwelling place of God. So much faith was invested in this concept, that when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and walked off with its religious vessels and appointments, leaving the Temple in ruins that the Jewish people were left in spiritual turmoil.  How could this one and only God, their God abandon them this way?

What is unusual with the Babylonian Captivity is that the Judean captives were not forced to assimilate with non-Judeans as apparently happened when the Kingdom of Israel was conquered.  The Babylonian captives were apparently allowed to remain in community with each other.  This simple fact led to an intuition about their God.  In time, they came to conclusion that God did not abandon them, that God went with them and from that point those writing or rewriting the Hebrew scriptures redacted that intuition into its narrative about the God of Abraham.  God became not only transient but transcendent.

Up until that point, gods did not move.  If a kingdom was defeated it was either because the god of that kingdom was defeated or the god of that kingdom abandoned it and sided with enemy.  This was not the sense the Jews in captivity had of their god.  Somehow their god came with them, and around that reflective intuition a new narrative arose that we now have in the Hebrew Scriptures where a god became God. 

So in writing the narrative of Judaism, these scholars developed and relayed the story of the God of Abraham telling Abram to travel and the God of Moses, identified as the God of Abraham, would  cross geographic boundaries to join him and Aaron in Egypt to deliver his people and bring them back to the Promised Land. This is perhaps one of the most powerful stories ever told that has literally shaped historical events because of its metaphorical implications and inspiration; particularly in the United States.

The stories of the Hebrew Scriptures may not be historically accurate or even factual but they encapsulate an imaginative intuition; a memorialized narrative regarding the establishment of Judaism which has endured since then. The notion of a transcendent God who can be anywhere and everywhere became a major step in religious evolution, which would be retained with the emergence of Judaism's progeny, Christianity and Islam.

ATHEISM

Atheism is the youngest of the theistic traditions.  Atheism cannot be separated from theism; in that, atheism is a denial of a being(s) called God or gods, but atheism cannot deny the concept of "god."  One cannot deny what does not exist.  To deny the concept of god is to establish the existence of god as a concept. Conceptually, God exists and there is no functional way to get around that fact.  Having said that, however, I must point out that atheism has greatly contributed to our understanding of religion; what it is, what it isn't, and to its weaknesses and contributions to social development.  I don't know that atheists would appreciate that complement, but I feel it is true.  I wouldn't be writing this blog if it weren't for atheists. 

Like all religious efforts, atheism is seeking to establish what is right and true.  Atheism is largely centered around a humanology; that attempts to answer from the viewpoint of human intellect and the various sciences the questions that have been long addressed by the various theologies of theism.  Atheism opens us to the fact that humans are capable, in themselves, of those things we have largely, over the millennia; particularly in the West, attributed to the realm of God.  The most important of which is the ability to love another human being or groups of human beings we don't know - to care about them - to understand that what happens to them effects the whole of humanity; that  our emotions, intellect, and imaginative ability to utilize them is what makes us who we are, human; that there is a moral responsibility in being purely human with no need to have a hereafter or worry about a divine judgement or to view our origins as flawed and sin-ridden.

We've acquired these very human abilities to insure our survival and the survival of the environment in which we live.  Whether these insight evolved from a theistic tradition, which is likely, it does not negate the fact that, if so, they are sustainable as a pure human endeavor.  This fact, I believe, has had a profound impact on theism, itself.  The scientific world cannot be ignored without risking damage to life on this planet. Any theistic belief that is centered on denying science is, in my opinion, dangerous, fundamentally anti-human, and doomed to irrelevancy. 

Atheism, as a branch of theism, however, struggles with the impulse to be religious, to give expression to its atheology and its humanology beyond its intellectual aspects.  It struggles with finding a ritual aspect, an all important albeit understated and underappreciated part of being human,  in facing certain life events that help humans deal with them emotionally and which are so much a part of theistic traditions which continue to give to billions of people a ritual expression of the emotions, including a large majority of the unaffiliated.

Some atheist search for meaningful religious communities centered around their mutual understanding in the human capacity to be loving and accepting without the need of an out-there-other, and in looking for meaningful ways to express the human experience of birth, life, commitment to one another, sickness and death in liturgies to replace the theistic traditions that have existed since the dawn of religious theism

As such, atheism, like theism embodies a variety of ideological beliefs regarding who we are what is meaningful in life.  There is, in my opinion, some effort on the part of atheists to write a new religious narrative regarding life on this planet, that has been going on for the past three centuries. 

HUMANISM

Humanism in the East can be traced back to India and China roughly from the sixteenth century to the eleventh century BCE, and in the West to around the first century CE.  Humanism like theism is varied, but generally speaking humanism is a philosophy that promotes a rational, empirical understanding of human experience that is not dependent on a particular theistic doctrine.  As such humanism is closely related to atheism, but I will contend that humanism is a natural outcropping of theism.

In future posts, I will present the my thoughts on what may be an emerging religious singularity, a convergence of theistic and humanistic ideology.  I will do this by looking at the humanistic elements of the theistic religion I know best, Christianity.

Until then, stay faithful.





 




   
















         

 

SPEAKING TRUTH IN LOVE - A homily

[This my homily which I delivered  at my church on August 2, 2015 which I spoke of in my post on the Gospel of John (click here)]

* * * * * * * * * *

“We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people's trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body's growth in building itself up in love.”  Ephesians 4: 14-16

Speaking truth in love is, to my mind, one of the biggest challenges of our time, if not any time.  It is a particular challenge that has been given to the church throughout the ages and a challenge to this church, our congregation in this place, at this time.  It’s a challenge because truth is not something that you find lying about or having a neon light flashing, "Get your truth here."

There is no small degree of subjectivity when it comes to talking about truth.  What may seem true to me may not be a true for you.  Truth is not like fact, something we might readily agree on, like the fact that I am standing here giving this homily and you are seated in this church – that's a fact. 

Truths are largely transcendent ideas that are intuited, which in turn lead to experiences with them and from which a better definition of truth is distilled.  As such truths are organic, their meanings and applications grow and expand.

One of the best examples of an intuited truth comes not from the Bible but from another source we, in the United States, are familiar with, “The Declaration of Independence” which says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”  

The term self-evident simply means there is no outside evidence to support it; that is intuited as being true. Thomas Jefferson, who penned these words and those who signed them, understood the difference between a truth that was self-evident; that is intuited and a truth distilled from experience. 

Equality of persons was nowhere near being a fact when The Declaration of Independence was written. Even today, any innate sense of equality that might exist amongst human beings disappears on the first breath taken, but throughout the generations since these words were written, they continue to inspire our nation towards greater equality and a more just society. 

Truth is an energizing mechanism, like a mighty river, ever shaping the contours of our lives.  No singular person can contain "TRUTH." 

Try to grab a river. Go ahead and try and grab it with your hands. It will flow through your fingers.  It might even grab you. Truth is like that.  It can grab us all of sudden and when it does our lives are changed.

The writer of Ephesians understood this about truth when using Paul's description of the church as the Body of Christ.  This metaphor helps us to understand the work of God in Christ and in our midst.  It helps us to understand the importance of speaking truth in love.   For we understand the Body of Christ to be a conveyor of God's truth to the world, and with an ever-increasing understanding of how small our world is and  how interconnected we are, comes a broadened understanding of what the Body of Christ means in the world today.

We can humbly and honestly say that no single religion contains the whole TRUTH, just as, no single person can, just as no part of a body can claim to be the most important part because the truth is we need each other.

Truth resides in every person and in every religion, because religion as a whole represents a collective human response to the very ancient and expanding intuition about that BEING in which we live and move and have our being, God. Inter-faith dialogue has revealed the fact that the religions share far more truths than they do differences. Jesus taught us that every person in the world is important to us because every person, even our enemies and those who might persecute us is part of the organicity that is God.

We need to claim this understanding of truth or we, in fact, become like children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, trickery, and scheming. 

There are those who will tell you their version of truth, as if they possess it.

Don’t believe it.

There are those who will portray truth as a rock solid doctrine that is to be believed without question.

Don’t go there.

This is what the writer of Ephesians is warning us about. 

The sad fact is that many who portray truth this way are in the Christian church. Ephesians is telling us to grow up – to carefully consider everything we hear whether it be from a pulpit, a soap box or on one’s favorite news source and not to run with it, but like an adult, walk it through, see where it's going, see how its growing and whether it is life-giving.

The best way that I know of to speak the truth is to speak from the heart what is in one’s heart.  It is also the best way to speak truth from the perspective of love.  Speaking the truth, in itself, is a challenge. Speaking the truth in love, is an even greater challenge because when truth hits, it hits with a passion and sometime that passion can make us express such truths in ways that are less then loving.  Even Jesus experienced and demonstrated that from time to time. (Remember the cleaning of the temple fiasco.)

Everyone here has something true to say; something residing in our hearts that is meant to be shared.  Truth often comes to us in small bits and pieces. We may not all come from the same place, intuit the same things, have the same experiences or see things the same way, and that is why it is important to share out of love what truths reside in us. It is only by putting all these bits and pieces together that we can see the bigger picture. 

What is also implied in speaking the truth in love and in the metaphor of the body functioning properly is that we pay attention to each other, that we listen in love to each other, just as it is a healthy practice to pay attention and listens to one’s body.  Truth is rarely an easy thing to say or an easy thing to hear, what is true is often that which challenges us in ways that make us uncomfortable for a time.  

When Jesus spoke truth to the religious and political authorities of his day there were strong reactions on their part.  Speaking truth to power is frequently fatal, but also life giving, and life-resurrecting.  The fear of not wanting to make waves or upsetting people can lead to blocking one from saying what is in one's heart, and a stifled heart is an unhealthy heart. Truth is not meant to be contained.

As a congregation and a presenting Body of Christ in this community, we are tasked with speaking truth in love to this community.  The church was never meant to be a self-contained unit that speaks only to its self.  As a presenting Body of Christ, in this in this community, God intends that we grow in love, and that we pour ourselves, as Christ poured himself out in the truth of love like a mighty, life-changing river.     

* * * * * * * * * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

THE PROBLEM WITH JOHN - THE GOSPEL THAT IS

Okay - it's been awhile since I've waxed theological and I recall having committed myself, some time ago, to blogging more about the Gospel of John, but before getting into that I need to say that for much of my life I considered The Gospel of John my favorite book of Bible.  I even read it and studied it as part of my course in New Testament Greek, which oddly didn't deter me from considering it my favorite.  That was years ago.

SERMON PREPARATION

In the church I'm a member of, I am a licensed lay reader and preacher, amongst other things. [And yes, they allow this faithful agnostic to preach every now and then, and I actually enjoy it (once I've figured out my homily or sermon)].

Giving a homily or sermon is something I take seriously.  For me, it's about giving an honest, thoughtful, and applicable talk about a reading from that Sunday's or day's lectionary (appointed scripture readings).  Doing so demands that I actually do some research about the scripture I'm going to use, to put it in context before trying to distill a message that is both true to the text and applicable to today.  It also has to be something I can deliver in eight to ten minutes. (That is a benchmark for me - anything over ten minutes better be damn well worth the time or heads will start nodding off and eyes will start closing.) 

Writing sermons actually led me to fully read and listen to scripture in whole new way that I hadn't done before.  Before giving sermons, I read the Bible "devotionally."   Devotional reading of scripture never led me to think too much about what I was reading.  I was fulfilling some sort of spiritual obligation just reading it (part of my pious Lutheran upbringing).  If something caused me to wonder about it, I dutifully put my mind at rest in the knowledge that I didn't know everything or, just as dutifully, kept my doubts to myself which I eventually couldn't do.

When I started writing sermons something came over me, a troublesome sense of having to be honest about what I was going to say. I don't worry about whether what I say will please the congregation or not. In fact, I suspect that if the congregation knows I'm going to be giving the sermon or homily on certain Sunday, some regulars are noticeably absent which is fine with me.  I believe the mark of a good sermon is when it prompts a congregation to think and to ask questions rather than provide answers to questions they have no need to ask, and I get that some don't like to go to church and have to think.

Standing in a pulpit or by a lectern or in front of a congregation requires the person in that position is being truthful about what he or she is going to say.  Sermons are particularly weighty matters.  So when I find something in a reading that doesn't strike me as being correct or right, I have two choices: 1) Point it out in the sermon, which I have done on more than one occasion, or
2) Use another reading. 

While I don't write sermons to please people, I see no need to go out of my way to disturb them if it can be avoided.

THE PROBLEM WITH JOHN

I'm scheduled to preach this Sunday (August 2, 2015) and the lectionary has us reading from the Letter to the Ephesians and the Gospel of John.  Generally speaking, the Gospel lesson is what is largely chosen as the main source for sermon development.  

Now -  I know I've complained about and discussed John in several other posts, and it would be nice if I could like the Gospel of John.  I wish I could, but to be honest, I don't. 

The fact is I thought I could give it a go this week and write a sermon based on a little known portion of John's account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand.  The story where a group of people (after being at the feeding event) get in a boat and cross the Sea of Galilee to look for Jesus.

I could see a theme develop about "Looking for Jesus" and started trying to put what I thought I could say within the context of the rest of Gospel reading, in order to say what I thought could be derived from this reading, but what I found myself doing was spending an inordinate amount of time trying to explain John and how I was getting from it a message about seeking Jesus which wasn't really there.

I know some preachers wouldn't have batted an eye about just going ahead and preaching on it anyway, but I can't.  Lectionaries cherry-pick the scripture the way it is, and I would have ended up cherry picking this gospel reading to the point of where what I was saying had little in common with what John's gospel was saying or, the more likely scenario, I would have taken so much time to explain John that whatever other point I was trying to make would have been lost.

If your interested in the reading, it is John 6:24-35.  My problem with this selection is the writer(s) of John have Jesus telling these seekers that they've got it all wrong with seeking him out in order to perform more signs (a not too subtle slam by John about Jews).  Jesus, as usual in John, is depicted as the divine "know-it-all" who basically ignores their questions and instead gives them answers to the questions they should have been asking.  In the end, John has Jesus telling these seekers (making John's point about Jesus), "I am the Bread of Life;" an answer to a question they never originally asked, but John has Jesus getting them there. 

There is something so dishonest and twisted about the Gospel of John and the way its written.  In fact, almost all the writings attributed to "John" have this problem. I understand that the writer(s) of John were using a literary device of positing their views about Jesus by making Jesus state them himself, to lend them authority, if not authenticity.  I get it, but I don't appreciate it.  At any rate, have no fear.  I'm sure any number of sermons will be given on the theme, "I am the Bread of Life" come Sunday.   

I was on my third attempted draft of this sermon when I realized that there is no way I can preach about anything from the Gospel of John, with the possible exception of John 8, the story of the adulterous woman.  I certainly couldn't do so in the eight to ten minutes I allow.  I could give a two hour lecture on the Gospel reading for this Sunday, or a whole year's course on John, but not a sermon.  John is just too complex and, in my opinion, too opinionated; has too much of an agenda about turning Jesus into God for me to distill an honest message that I could deliver in a short period of time.  So I abandoned John and wrote a very concise sermon on the Ephesians reading for the day; on the topic, "Speaking truth in love," Ephesian 4:14-16.

ON THE JOHNS

In my opinion the Gospel of John is not really a gospel at all.  If anything, I would call it a gospel about the Gospels; in that it cherry-picks what the writer wants to talk about found in the other gospels.  John is largely a theological work and a poor one at that, in my estimation.  I know most Christians love the Gospel of John. It contains some of the most quoted sayings attributed to Jesus that are to be found in the New Testament, but I find most of them very deceptive in that there is little explanation at to why Jesus is saying what he is saying.  There are all those "I am" metaphors that sound nice, but really say very little in explaining why they're being said.  John assumes the reader knows what's in the other gospels because he certainly doesn't take time to explain the conclusions he comes to.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing I find in John is the "I got you" quality to most of these sayings. You start reading something that sounds lovely and kind until you read on for the next two or three verses and find out that if you don't agree with this, you're as good as going to hell.  What also upsets me with John is how anti-Jewish it is.  I just want to scream when it talks about "The Jews did this. The Jews did that."  Jesus was a Jew, for crying out loud!  He didn't talk that way, and I'm totally convinced he wouldn't have appreciated those who follow him talking that way.  As such there is a vindictive quality and air about the Gospel of John. In fact, the more I think about it, I feel the vindictive, judgmental spirit that is present in a number of churches and expressed by a number of Christians to the fact that the Johns passively promote it.

The Gospel of John is a club house gospel.  There is nothing inclusive about John unless you're a Christian, and an unquestioning one at that.  I know that people see the Gospel of John as the Gospel of Love, but it isn't.  For all the love talk in the Johns, there's an edge.  God loves everybody, but if you don't love God back (and most seem incapable of doing so  according to the Johns) you can go to hell.  In that regard it has little in common with the teachings of Jesus found in the three synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke which are inclusive and where we find Jesus talking about loving our neighbors as ourselves, to love our enemies, etc.  You're not going to find that in the Johns. The Johns talk about love, but only in the context of the club house church. 

I used to think that if the Gospel of John was the only gospel, we would know and understand all there is to know and understand about Jesus.  Wow - has that thought changed!

Frankly, I don't see Jesus in John. What I see is a very pointed theology about Jesus being put in Jesus' mouth to give it unquestionable authority.  I understand John to be a period piece, written at a difficult time in a early church setting that was trying to figure itself out, trying to differentiate itself from its parent religion, Judaism; trying to make God more accessible by turning Jesus into God; trying to give assurance through the certainty of belief as opposed to living in the faith, hope, and love that Paul talks and that Jesus exemplified and taught as found in the other gospels.

I realize that the Johns are not going any place and I'm not advocating that they do, but I think it is important to very careful with them.  I don't find them very helpful or very encouraging in facing the problems of our current world.  They foster the certainty of belief in a narrow, closed-hearted theological understanding of  God's love that can lead one to ignore the practicality of faith that I find helpful when dealing with the uncertainties of life.

Until next time, stay faithful. 












  

ZEITGEIST

In this post I thought I would step back into a more reflective mode in order to ponder the recent events of our time. The Germans have a wonderful word that captures what I'm talking about: Zeitgeist, understood to mean the spirit of the time.

A GREAT READ

I'm writing this post while on vacation with my wife, visiting our youngest daughter who lives in New York City.  What started me thinking about this post is that on our way to the airport we stopped to have lunch at a coffee shop called the Urban Abbey in Omaha, Nebraska - excellent coffee, homemade sandwiches, and other homemade goodies.

It also has a small, interesting bookstore. While looking through the books I ran across and purchased a small book to read on the plane. The book is titled, "The Gardens of Democracy" by Eric Liu and Nick Hanuaer.  I was able to finish reading it the evening we reached our daughter's Harlem apartment. I rarely read a book in one sitting.

This is a book for our time, especially, people living in the United States. It is beautifully written and written to make one think. I will most certainly read it again.

If you haven't read it, consider doing so.

Their book isn't about zeitgeist, per se, but it seems indicative of an emerging one.  It offers new way to look at things. It reminded me of how much like thinking occurs in a massive way at certain times, but I'm not going to talk about this excellent book.  I'll leave it up to you to read it for yourself.

ZEITGEIST MOMENTS OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

2000 through 2012

In this post, I want to spend time looking at zeitgeist moments. Not that zeitgeists can be defined in terms of specific dates since they give way to other such moments and trying to draw line where one ends and one begins is impossible. What marks a zeitgeist moment is an identified flow of ideas and thought that produce action and innovation.  In fact, one zeitgeist moment may lead to its polar opposite  For example, during the first decade of this new century was a move towards social conservatism in both politics and religion. Within a few weeks of 9/11 it seemed the world retracted into a shell as if, in some way, we collectively had gone too far out on a progressive limb and needed to find a way back into the safety of an idealized past. The fact is though this moment wasn't caused by 9/11,  it was more of  the outbreak event of a zeitgeist moment that was already underway. The zeitgeist of the time had a name, fundamentalism.

The irony of that era was that fundamentalism, in the form radicalized Islam, created a like radicalized Christian response in the more free intellectual environments, particularly in the United States.  The goal of fundamentalism, in all of its various forms, is aimed at eliminating freedom of thought. As such, fundamentalism easily lends itself to the irrationality of war as a necessary response or outcome to or of a perceived evil that is believed to have arisen from permissive thought.

While religious fundamentalists may talk about a god of love, their version of a loving God is a belief in conditional god who comes with a lot ifs, ands, and buts. God loves you as long as you think the right way and do what you're told. This usually means to stop thinking and just believe what you're being told. As such, fundamentalism has its own ideological deity that I would identify as the God of Wrath.

A god of wrath is helpful when trying to wipe out intellectual freedom. Interestingly, the God of Wrath is not preferential, as this god is paid homage by all fractious sides.  Human blood, in the form of war, is the preferred sacrifice by this god and fear its liturgy.

And, for a time, the world bowed obsequiously to this god.

So as war took center stage, fundamentalism in various forms strengthened. Politics became polarized and narrow as it maintained a hawkish front.  Religion, for the most part, embraced the certainty of belief rather than the truthfulness of faith. Truth no longer spoke to power.  Power was truth.

And for a moment the fundamental politics of war and the fundamental certainty of religious belief were wedded.

I remember quite distinctly how quiet not only the skies became, but also how hushed any conversation in public became that questioned the direction our nation was taking shortly after the events of 9/11.

As time went on, I could not help but observe the emerging similarities between both Muslim and Christian fundamentalism with regard to social issues. Of course in the USA we did not employ the draconian methods used by the Taliban to enforce their moral codes, but rather made attempts to enforce morality through legal processes as though the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were no longer the main focus of national and international concern. The political irrationality of the Terri Schaivo case and the effort to add an amendment to the U.S. constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman were indicative of this fundamentalist zeitgeist moment.

The Roman Catholic Church is perhaps one of the best places in recent times to observe any zeitgeist currents.  It had its own "fundamental" moment.  As Pope John Paul II's papacy neared its end, the Roman Church retracted from the progressive advances of Vatican II.  With the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the Church of Rome seemed to have stepped back into a theological time warp that resembled Catholicism of the late 19th century, but all of these occurrences had a consistency about them that said Zeitgeist.

The Great Transition

Zeitgeists, like economic markets,  have their bubbles that eventually burst. These are transitional periods between zeitgeist that are poorly defined and marked more by confusion and anticipation.

It appears that we may be exiting a transitional period.  It started with economic bubbles bursting all over the place, and the world experiencing  one of the worst economic recessions to date. At the same time, people in the USA seemingly had their fill of war and their fill of fundamentalism by electing our first black president.

With the market crash came scandal after scandal involving high profile financial moguls who bilked countless investors of their life savings and evangelical preachers and leaders of fundamentalist mega-churches who preached to high heaven on family values and then  found being involved with mostly male prostitutes.

The bastion that is the Roman Catholic Church was rocked by scandal after scandal involving pedophile priests causing a financial and moral crisis that resulted in Pope Benedict "retiring." The Middle East erupted in the Arab Spring with one after another Arab nation experiencing populist revolts that has left the Middle-east in turmoil and uncertainty, but which may emerge a calmer place if and when the dust is allowed to settle.

A new moment?

I believe we are in a new zeitgeist moment; one that hopefully is more caring, humble, patient, and reasoned than in the recent past. One might question my sanity in saying this.  I'm not being idealistic. I realize there is tremendous anxiety and uncertainty where things are going, but what gives me hope and what seems indicative of a zeitgeist moment is the emergence of new ideas, but be it far from me to predict what all this means or what twists and turns will be encountered.

Creativity is in the air as a collective fatigue over repeating the same old patterns and keeping to the same economic, political, and religious agenda set in.  I believe there is a general awareness about the insanity of doing the same unproductive things repeatedly. Zeitgeists are largely marked by massive trends that bubble up from a ground level, with new ideas and language to along with them.

SCOTUS' recent rulings on such political hot topics such as health care and same-sex marriage are indicative of the break-through moments as is the response of South Carolinians to violence inflicted on Emmanuel AME church by removing the Confederate war flag from its capital grounds.  With such break-through moments will come challenges and reaction.  Nothing about a spirit of the times is easy or has a moral value to it.  Rather it is about a thematic flow of thought which results in actions, but one can never predict an outcome to this flow or where it will lead.

Emergence

The election of Barack Obama marked the emergence of a new zeitgeist moment; one that signaled the fatigue this country and world was feeling over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the economic recession, and the social retraction that had occurred during the eight previous years.  Awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize struck some in the United States as an awkward moment, but it seemed to be more than a mere expression of relief on the part of the western world, rather it was a recognition that the zeitgeist of extreme fundamentalism was over in the West, and, as it turns out, they were right.  Fundamental extremism appears to be waning at the moment.

2013 to the Present

The election of Pope Francis I, is probably the clearest signal that a new zeitgeist moment has arrived in the West.  He put his imprimatur on language that's been around, but never recognized. His use of the word gay, for example, during an impromptu conversation with members of the press did more to break down closet doors than a single act done by anyone else. Even though he does not favor same-sex marriage, he legitimized, on a global scale, that being gay is acceptable and should be accepted. It will take time for many to catch up to this, but the seed has sprouted. Although concerns about global warming and climate change has been around for some time, his "Laudato Si" did more to awaken the world to our common plight that scientists have been warning us of than the valiant efforts of Al Gore and others who undoubtedly influenced his encyclical.

Politics, in the United States, is always fascinating and generally unpredictable. I really wish the majority of its citizens would appreciate how fascinating it is and become engaged.  Two individuals are currently dominating the presidential race. Both were considered a long shot at the start of their campaigns, but both are near leading their respective parties in the polls.

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, regardless of what one might think of them, have proven to be game changers with regard to parties they represent. No two individuals could be further apart idealistically or politically, but their attraction, at the moment, is signaling exactly what I meant by a collective fatigue that is yearning for new ideas and approaches. Both of these individuals represent the press for plain talk and truth-telling. Whether one likes what  is said or appalled by what is said, these two are shaking their respective parties up in a way that may make this presidential race more focused.

Politics, whether of a national or of a religious nature, do not generate zeitgeist moments, but are indicators of one. Politics are largely responsive to the seismic groundswell of an emerging collective consciousness. The United States and the Roman Catholic Church are two of the best indicators of a global zeitgeist. Primarily, because both are monolithic institutions that embody diverse cultures and intellectual thought one is able to see such seismic shifts of on a grander scale.

The reality is that much smaller nations and religious institutions are far ahead of these monoliths when it comes to creative thought and innovation. I believe in part the reason for this is because they are smaller and more agile and able to make the sort of commitments to social progress and eco-friendly planning than much bulkier nations and institutions.  For example, some small European nations are no longer dependent on fossil fuels for their nations energy needs.  Smaller Christian and Jewish denominations have readily embraced same-sex marriage. Some, like the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ have divested their stock holdings in the fossil fuel industries and reinvesting in clean energy industries.

Zeitgeists, however, do not come out of the blue. They just appear to because a groundswell of thought and activity has reached a breakthrough point in our collective consciousness as witnessed in recent events mentioned earlier.

I remain hopeful that we, in the United States and in other parts of the world, have reached a point where, for the most part, we are poised to bury the evils of a past steeped in discrimination, fear, and segregation to embrace a more just society and fuller humanity. It is clear that not all parts of the world are ready for this, but we in the West and in other more democratic nations are poised to tackle the environmental mess that we've inherited and to create and restore the earth to its natural beauty. We are poised, but as yet not fully committed, to see fruition. Time (hopefully a short time) will tell if we become fully committed to what seems to be the spirit of the time, to this new zeitgeist.


Until next time, stay faithful.

FOR THE BEAUTY OF THE EARTH

After posting my thoughts on Pope Francis's encyclical  "Laudato Si"  (click here ),  I have given more thought to the issues that were discussed in his encyclical and wish to give my own take on some of the subjects he touched upon.  I am not a scientist nor a bona fide philosopher, for that matter.  I am just a person who thinks about things beyond his ken.  Hence my claim to being an agnostic. 

It seems to me that scientist have been warning us for some time about global warming, and economist have been warning us of the devastating effects to world security that can result because of the extreme disparity of wealth throughout the world.  In my opinion they have received little more than a lukewarm response by the vast majority of the world's governments. 

Global warming and poverty are not new to the world.  Climatologists will tell us the earth has gone through periods of extreme warming and cooling long before homo sapiens walked the face of the earth.  Anthropologist will tell you that poverty has been a constant since the dawn of human civilization and that the connection between climate change and human want is well known.  So those who would dismiss the current concerns being expressed by a majority of professionals in these fields as nothing to worry about have the past to back their lack of concern. The problem is they fail realize that it's happening now, and we know that humans are largely the reason for it happening and that there may be things we can do to change it.  

Pope Francis touched upon many interrelated subjects that I will briefly expand on this post.  The first is examining how the lack of concern for the world's ecosystem can lead to war and the further destruction of the world ecosystem.  I will also talk briefly on the problem of wealth disparity and how this contributes to our ecological dilemma.

THE ANACHRONISM OF WAR

War is perhaps the greatest threat to our ecological systems. 

As mentioned in my previous post, we humans have not advanced ethically as fast as we have technologically. The prime example of this is war.  In my opinion war is an anachronism, something we should have grown out of a long time ago, but as a whole we haven't.  In some ways, the teenager who is sitting behind a computer screen waging and fighting virtual wars of conquest and destruction is symbolic, if not symptomatic, of what the nations of the world are as a whole.  We are drawn to war, drawn to the destruction of our own kind. For the most part, we continue to act like primitive tribes when it comes to nations relating to one another on a global scale; vying for turf and the control of its natural resources; seeing this small planet as if it were the whole universe; imbuing idealistic beliefs with god-like purposes to sanction the destruction of others and their environment.  To that end much of the advancement of our modern technology has been directed to broaden defense while improving weapons with deadly accuracy to take out one's foes. 

An outcome of that type of R&D has resulted in many of the modern conveniences we enjoy today, such as the world-wide web and cellular phones, which indicates that world's technological advances could be readily turned to serious problem-solving rather than improving on how to make weapons serve an ultimate solution scenario. They have largely served to placate suspicion regarding the trajectory such technological advances are aiming for.  We still are working from the primitive principle that the person or nation who can wield the biggest stick or rock is the person or nation you need to pay attention to. In that sense, ethically speaking, we have not progressed further than the invention of the wheel.  

The fact is we, as nations, do not know how  to live with each other very well.  I believe we're learning as an inadvertent result of technological advances to communicate better on a personal level, but for humans to digest what they learn takes a long time, especially when what we are learning at  a grass roots level needs to find its way to the top.  On the other hand, this technology has also allowed some to live more insulated lives, creating virtual private rooms and a reality that exists only on a computer screen, but one that is responsive to the viewer; that conveys a sense of immortality and god-like power that vanquishes "the enemy." We now are seeing how such lone, isolated individuals are ripe for radicalization by terror groups who encourage such mesmerized minds to move from the virtual violence of their computer screens to commit actual acts of violence on those outside of their virtual reality, unable to separate the virtual reality of being in a personal war with whomever they choose and the real futility of committing such violence on innocent people, animals, and the environment that sustains them.

That we haven't learned how to avoid war simply shows how deficient we are in understanding ourselves and the world in which we live.  Some will say that war is a fact of life.  Some have gone so far as to suggest such a thing as the permanency of war. I believe a bellicose mentality is so ingrained in almost every culture that the reality of war has become a game as demonstrated in various team sports, which serve as a sort of pressure valve to release the global desire for conquest.  I know this will strike a lot of people as simply wrong because most people love their competitive sports and are loyal to the teams they support.

Parents and educators will extol the virtue of team sports as teaching positive values, of how to get along with each other, work together, exhibit a sense of fair play, and kindness to those who lose.  I certainly will not argue with that, but consider that the origin of team sports not only teaches children how to get along with each other, but also how to get along with each other for the purpose of defeating the opposing team.  While it teaches good virtues it is premised on being the winner and to take pride one's or the teams ability to the defeat others effectively. The sportsmanship of the playing field is rarely demonstrated on the battlefield and  if you haven't noticed, the more violent the team sport, the less sportsmanship is exhibited and expected.

I am inclined to live in the hope that as a world we will come to understand how small our planet home really is and of the need to eliminate war; as the old folk song put it, "We ain't gonna  study war no more." 

Preventing war is a must, if we are to save our planet home.  I am appalled how many monuments we raise to honor the dead and heroes of war, building them in temple proportions while few exist honoring the peacemakers of the world.  It amazes me how frequently we mistrust the efforts of diplomacy to solve territorial strife and are so ready to put "boots on the ground."  We know, as has been shown time and time again, that diplomacy is the only means to prevent wars and end them.  We know that a people fighting for their land or against an injustice will fight and destroy until they feel heard.  We know that for all the military hardware that is capable of wiping whole geographical areas off the map, will not stop these voices, unless one is willing to silence every voice along the way.  Even then, the ground will cry out on behalf of the innocent blood that is spilled (Genesis 4:10).

 We have yet to take "our swords and turn them into plows, our spears into pruning hooks" (Micah  4:3). What an apt Biblical metaphor that demonstrates the various ways technology can be repurposed.

"MY ROOM - KEEP OUT!"

 I see the nations of the world much like the rooms of  a house overrun by petulant teenagers who have placed signs on the doors of their nation-rooms, "Keep Out" in order to engage in any activity they choose and to clutter their personal turf as if it had no impact on the rest of the home environment.  The fact is if a room's ecology is a disaster, that disaster will spread.  It will impact the atmosphere and the environment of the whole house if nothing is done.   Bacteria, mold, vermin of all sorts can gain a foothold that will eventually impact the rest of the house.  Keeping the room of our nations clean and kept up will do much to improve our planet home. Doing so will do much to alleviate the need to look at the resources and turf of others.  As the world becomes more information based, more democratic the "Keep Out" signs are becoming less effective. 

Not that nations don't have secrets or don't want to maintain their secret ways, but rather there is a phenomenon emerging in democracy that was predicted in a book written by John Keane, "The Life and Death of Democracy" written in 2009.  This extensive book on the history of democracy in all its known forms was written before with Wiki-leaks and NSA leaks occurred.  In his book, Keane predicted that in order for democracy to work effectively, that people must be informed as to what their governments are doing; that people cannot accurately make decisions without knowing what's going on.  He called this "Monitory Democracy" and predicted it would be a game changer in world events.   It has.

I don't know if  Julian Assange and Ed Snowden were working from that principle to justify leaking the secret information of the nations they did, or if they were thinking merely in terms of personal profit.  I found it interesting that Keane had predicted such events shortly before they occurred.  It is also interesting that in the wake of such events, there is a sense that "Keep Out" signs are less effective and have resulted in exposing the adolescent voyeuristic practices that "free" nations of the world employ on each other. This, of course, comes as no shock to anyone.  Allies have always spied on each other. I think most of us at least suspected that such activities took place and that is why it has not created much of popular outcry by the citizenry of these free countries as it has by their government officials. 

You may be asking, what relevance such events have on the concerns about world ecology?

Ironically, these sorts of events may actually bring us closer together as a world by exposing the divisive adolescent-like behavior that exist amongst the nation-rooms of our planet home.  The walls are no longer sound proof.  The noise of one nation is heard by all. The sense of show and tells that has resulted has created a sense of humility amongst the nations of the world.  It exposes the fact that no one can claim to be standing on the moral high ground. Everyone has dirt on their faces.

My point is that any serious attempt to rectify the ecological problems of the world  cannot be mired with back room deals that ignore the simplest of life forms or which disregards the poverty of people who cannot fend for themselves.  Earth is not just the domain of politicians and the CEO's of large corporations.  It is home to us all. 

Repair and restoration will not be seriously addressed until such time as we are able to see the connection between such adolescent turf wars and the time and expense it takes away from providing care to the environment in which we all live. The nations of the world waste a lot of time, effort, and capital over things that will not sustain our planet home.  Every war literally tears apart the home we live in.  The "Keep Out" signs of the past need to be replaced with "Welcome" signs in recognition that each of our nation-rooms is nothing more than a room within the small planet home we share with each other. 

It would be nice if we were to allow the world to grow up and old before it dies out.  Being an old adolescent is simply embarrassing.  Amidst all the wars that are taking place right now, I believe there is a chance, however slim, that this one issue, this one important issue - the desperate needs of our common, planet home can instill a maturity among the nations of the world to come together in order to save what we have in a way that has not seen in human history.

TECHNOLOGY AND FINANCE OF THE PAST

It seems that as we develop some advanced technologies, we do so without having them moored to a foundational understanding of the past.  I read somewhere that the ancient Greeks taught that to see the future one must look behind one's self, implying that by looking at the past we have better understanding where we're going with things.  In order to put this into perspective, however, I am not just talking about recent technological advances.  The fact is technological advances have been happening since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th Century, which also took place as the world was being introduced to a new global economic system defined by Adam Smith as capitalism. 

The problems we are facing today started long before any of our lifetimes.  I feel this is part of the difficulty some have in grasping the seriousness of the situation we are now in.  The current generations didn't start this problem, we've inherited it from our great-great grandparents.  It's not like we don't have a past to see where this is heading.   Without this important understanding, it is difficult for some to accept that the threats to the Earth's ecology is a serious problem.  For over a century we've seen the black smoke of coal fires, the danger of smog so thick as to block out the sun.  The London fog depicted in the movies of the 30'& 40's was nothing more than London smog.  Much has been done to clean that up, but there remains areas in the world that suffer from such environmental disasters.  We know there are things that can be done to eliminate such things.  It's not a matter of knowing.  It's a matter of willing. 

Large private corporations, more than governments, are to blame for the lack of will because their concern for the future extends no further than the closing bell of the stock market at the end of the week. Many do not see themselves as having vested interest to what happens to the world beyond how the world may impact their investors.  All things are interrelated.  What will move corporations to align themselves for caring about the world is if their investors insist.  The urgency, for example by the oil industry, to fracking out every drop of oil for profit is technological knowhow that could have been used to develop alternative energy sources. 

THIS GARDEN PLANET

Let me reiterate what I said in my last post, finance and technology are not the problem, in themselves.  The problem resides in how they're being used; to what purposes they are being employed. Used correctly, they could preserve and restore the beauty of the Earth in ways never thought possible.  I believe there is time if there is the will of the nations to take the time to seriously make a concerted effort to correct what we can.  What prevents the nations of the world to address this is pride and greed - the ever competitive, adolescent mind-set of whose number one.  We are obsessed with numbers, rankings, polls.  

I understand that these devices and methods exist precisely because people don't trust their own eyes and ears any longer.  We need to know how we compare to others and the world around us.  We want to know if we're in the popular crowd or the unpopular crowd.  I am always intrigued and amazed at how alluring polls and rankings are.  They have become the astrological charts of our age - which stars are rising, which planetary forces aligning, etc. 

All the while what is needed is to use one's own senses to know what is happening around  us.  We have never been so informed as we are today and yet we seem as confused as ever.  What blocks us from using information effectively is hubris and a sense of exceptionalism, a sense that the bad things happening in that nation's-room won't happen in my room; that their mess is well... their mess.  Fortunately, there are a growing number of people around the world who do not think this way, who are more than willing to help to clean the messes up where ever they are.  Many nations do come together when major catastrophes occur in another part of the world to help.  This is what gives me hope that with a little more concerted effort our world can mature beyond the need for war and become the caretakers of this garden planet. 

We are living in a critical yet  hopeful age where more and more people throughout the world have and exhibit a universal care for our planet home.  This is especially true amongst younger people.

I believe, the greatest generation is yet to be - one that will not be mired in war, but the sweat of rebuilding and restoring our planet home.  

Technology will undoubtedly play a part as will the judicious use of wealth.  There are many philanthropists who understand the importance of saving our planet.  Some smaller, progressive nations, are expending their financial resources to find environmentally safe ways to produce energy. They will help pave the way for larger nations to do likewise.  It's not about bigness its about inventiveness and ingenuity, about the will to do what needs to be done.

THE POOR YOU HAVE ALWAYS WITH YOU - NOT NECESSARILY THE RICH

In Capitalism we hear of an invisible hand that guides financial markets to unintended social benefits and which corrects the markets when they become unbalanced.  In the recent history, this belief in a self-correcting market has led to some of the most devastating market crashes, with some saying there was nothing one could do to prevent it or rectify it.  That, as we now know, was a  false assumption.   There were things people could have done to prevent it and there were things done to rectify it.  If a creation of mankind, Capitalism, has its own force, which it seems to have, than what about the forces of nature?  What is apparent is these forces, whether creations of human ingenuity or the result of earth's ecosystem, are responsive to what we humans do

Even Adam Smith warned of the abuses pure capitalism could entail.  In the US we have become so reactive to any terminology involving social welfare or socialism that we cannot wrap our heads around the fact that the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are, themselves, perhaps the first social-orientated documents ever produced by a government.  The US is experiencing a period of time in which exists the largest income disparity. The number of people entering into poverty is increasing as the vast majority of wealth is controlled by the top one percent of the population.  Capitalism seems to work best when money is flowing, generating new jobs that improve the quality of everyone's life.  The flow of money, money spent not money kept, is what creates wealth and as wealth gets bottled up by the few, the flow of money becomes unstable. This is why seeing the middle class disappear is so disconcerting, not just to the government, but it should be a major concern for those who have wealth.  Bottled up wealth, in the long run, does nothing, buys nothing, and eventually means nothing. Money has no intrinsic value of its own.  It's value is only connected to what it can buy.  Hoarding money will eventually decrease its value, saving it for judicious purposes will not. Spending it wisely will increase its value.

Allow me to put on my theological hat for a moment.  In one of the Christian Testament's gospels (Matthew 26) is the strange story of a women who anoints Jesus' head with costly ointment.  Jesus' disciple raise a fuss of her extravagant gesture, pointing out the jar and ointment could have been sold and the money given to poor - something in line with what Jesus had been preaching about since they met him.  Jesus in a seemingly 180 degree turn around seems to dismiss the notion by saying, "The poor you have always with you, but not me."   The setting of this event is the feast of the Passover, which Jesus is celebrating with one of his friends, Simon the Leper. 

I have to admit when I first heard this story it disjointed my thinking about Jesus.  How could he so glibly, arrogantly, and in an obvious display of egotism dismiss the needs of the poor while he feasted and was literally showered in extravagance?   Had Jesus become an Epicurean?

Possibly, but I think there is a more subtle message within this story.  Extravagance is fleeting.  Feasts are few and far between.  Poverty is a constant, wealth is not.   Poverty can swallow wealth very quickly, like a drought can wither a green field or a wild fire an entire forest.

If poverty is allowed to become so  pervasive as it is in some areas of the world, it can render the value of money meaningless.  The poor are like the canaries used by coal mines to see environment is safe. What happens to the poor can happen to rich.  If the environment cannot sustain the poor, it will not sustain the rich either.  If all the rich has is money, but the money cannot buy or purchase what is needed, having it serves no purpose and the rich man is no better off than the poor man.  He may have a billion dollar yacht, but if there is no fuel to power it, if there is no food to be put on the table, the party is over, the feast is done.  That is the crisis we all face, poor and rich alike and everyone in between. 

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, but there is something wrong with poverty.  No person in the modern world should have to live in poverty. A lot of wealthy people have no choice but to be wealthy because of the way the world's financial systems work. But for wealth to have meaning, it must have purpose beyond a self serving one.  If those who have received much do not see the responsibility to give more to causes that will benefit all, particularly the impoverished,  what they have may well lose its value as poverty will spread like a virus. The security net for the whole ecosystem is a stable, ecology-minded middle class.

    
NEGLECT IS NATURE'S SIGNAL TO CORRECT


There are many things that the nations and major businesses of the world can do to solve the ecological problems caused by human activity. Neglecting to do something is a crime against nature.   Neglect here is simply defined as a disregard of our impact on what nature has produced; a disregard to animal and plant life that may not seem important at the time, but which serve a purpose that is not immediately comprehended by the average human mind.  Life on this planet has always been a balancing act.  As technologically advanced as we have become, we cannot control the weather.  Once a species of animal or plant life no longer exists, we cannot bring it back.  Nature is a responsive force to cause and effect.  Changes in the atmosphere will result in storms or draughts.  The effects of droughts can lead to wild fires which can effect atmospheric changes. 

The depletion of rain forests has affected the air system of our planet.  Global warming caused by carbon emission and the depletion of the Ozone layer is causing glaciers to quickly vanish, which in turn is causing a rise in the oceans.  I saw this personally and up front during an Alaskan cruise in which I saw melt water gushing up beneath Hubbard Glacier and saw a huge calving of an iceberg break away from the glacier causing our ship to move.  This was a  majestic sight, but I could not help feeling sad, knowing that this majestic ice flow is shrinking at an alarming rate.   

Earth's environment, its atmosphere, the very oxygen we breath is corrosive by nature.  It is natural for things to wear out, especially things we make.  In the US we talk about our failing infrastructure, our aging bridges, roads and buildings.  If we neglect them nature will take care of them and bring them down.  What we put into the atmosphere will and has created an atmospheric response.  Weather patterns have changed drastically and is consistent with the timetables many scientist predicted regarding the urgency to do something before its too late.  So called "500 Year Storms" are becoming a yearly event in the past several years. 

Yes climate change is natural, because its responsive.  Climate change in the past was a gradual occurrence that took a long time to come and a long time to abate.  We're seeing things happen within a few years time that in the past would have taken eons to accomplish or would have been brought about by a severe natural catastrophe, such as a huge volcanic eruption or a large meter striking the earth. 

What will probably have the greatest impact on everyone's mind about global warming in developed countries is when insurance companies are seeing their assets drained away  in payouts and people see their insurance rates sky-rocket as a result.  Then the relationship between ecology and economy will set in. Unfortunately by the time most will be getting on board,  the moment for effectively addressing this globally may have passed.  Resources, such as clean water, food, and energy will be in shorter supply further impacting world economy.

What will change the will of governments, in short run, will be a change in will of every person on the street or in the field to prompt action.  No single person can change the course these forces have taken, but each person has a voice that together can make enough noise to change the will of the world's governments, and with enough will power, governments will start putting up welcome signs and working together to rectify the human impact that has caused these conditions.

The Earth is still a beautiful place and I believe it can be even more so if we act.

Until next time, stay faithful