Blogging to Resume

I expect to resume blogging, on a more limited basis. My new blog is Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, the address is in the hyperlink. I look forward to rejoining the blogging world with considerable anticipation.

Announcement

Friends and readers, my apologies for the decline in my posts in recent weeks. Life has been exceptionally busy as of late (I'm actually writing these words while on vacation in the beautiful Adirondacks of New York) and at this time I expect will only get busier. Starting in August I will begin attending law school full time, and (if things go as planned) will move to a part-time position in the hospital where I work (weekend overnights) and will also be volunteering at a hospice (an experience I expect to be deeply enriching). Coupled with my CUA board duties (I recently took over the role as chair of the ordination committee) this will leave relatively little room for blogging. My desire to write, however, has not diminished in the slightest. The fact is that I am an amateur, part-time, armchair theologian-philosopher. Bearing this in mind I'm excited to announce that I am going to use what free time I do have to work on a new project: I'm going to write a book.

I love writing, have always wanted to write a book and am surrounded by authors, including several of my colleagues on the CUA board. This book will be a few things: It will be a spiritual memoir of sorts, a humorous look at my own spiritual journey. It will be part summa theologica-I've decided that the best way for me to simultaneously articulate my theology and to systematize it, I need the structure of a book. And part of the book will simply be me expounding on what I feel are the most important elements for a spiritual worldview for this age. This book may or may not be inspirational, and I don't expect it to be easily classified as liberal, conservative or anything else. It WILL most certainly touch on Christian Universalism. No doubt it will reflect my interfaith hunger and what I've learned from other traditions.

For now I'm only beginning to put together a rough outline, the skeleton if you will, of the book. There will be much evolution between now and the final product. At this time I am unwilling-unable in fact-to present a definitive date for when this book might be finished, let alone published. But rest assured this is a real project...I've decided to mold my love of writing with discipline (something my hobby is utterly lacking for the moment) and actually produce something with it. Even in spite of my busy schedule I believe I can produce a book that will deliver what I expect it to.

The question of time, of course, raises the question of this blog. Due to time constraints and the demand of this new project I will largely disappear from the blogosphere, not by choice but simply due to the fact that I need to study, work, eat, sleep and spend some time screwing off on Facebook. When I do write about faith I need to be focused and channel my energy into the book. I am not completely retiring from blogging, but my posts will become quite infrequent. For the time being I'm not planning on sharing much info about the book-that may change of course, but I'm not quite comfortable yet with shameless self-promotion and I prefer to hammer out my words in private before delivering them into the hands of the editors. That's not to say I might not sneak something in here or there, so stay tuned.

This book does not yet have a title, but in a lesson than original moment I have assigned it the working title A Sect Unto Myself, with the subtitle Reflections and Ruminations of a Spiritual Renegade. Again this pre-evolution, so it may or may not appear under this title on Amazon in a few years. Having delivered this announcement I am retreating again from the blog, but will continue to lurk online and will reappear from time to time when I feel I have something profound to offer. Thank you all for reading what I have to say and for sharing your own insights with me along the way...it has been, and will continue to be, one heck of a journey!

Religion and the Founding Fathers

This seems like a timely topic to blog about on the Fourth of July. I recently listed to a panel discussion held at the National Constitution Center on February 6th, 2007 (the podcast is available on the the NCC website or directly here). The panelists were pastor-author Peter Lillback (author of George Washington's Sacred Fire, which was endorsed by Glenn Beck); author Jana Novak, who co-wrote the book Washington's God with her father Michael Novak; and professor Peter Henrique, author of Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington. For those unfamiliar with this subject the religious views of the Founding Fathers have been a lightning rod for some time. Washington's have been of particular interest, because unlike Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (who wrote extensively about religion, particularly in the voluminous correspondence they carried on in their twilight years) Washington was remarkably reticent about his religious beliefs. Actually Washington was fairly reticent about many things-he was a politician who understood how to keep his mouth shut, an extraordinarily rare gift and one that near as I can tell is utterly lacking in this day and age. As a result there has been an ongoing, and very lively, debate about whether Washington was a devout Christian or a deist.

Before saying more I'd like to provide a brief list of books that I find offered the most balanced accounts of the religious views of the Founders:

• Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty (Steven Waldman)
• The Faiths of our Founding Fathers (David L Holmes)
• American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers and the Making of a Nation (Jon Meacham)

The last book, in my view, is the best-Meacham managed to steer a middle course that garnered tacit approval from Focus on the Family (no small achievement). Other books that are good-if slightly more biased from one side or the other-are Moral Minority by Brooke Allen; Revolutionary Spirits: The Enlightened Faith of America's Founding Fathers by Gary Kowalski; and God and the Oval Office by Jon McCollister. There is no shortage of books on the subject, but some (such as Tim LaHaye's book on the subject) are so heavily tilted in one direction I find them somewhat hard to take seriously. In any case, the majority of books on this subject do suggest one thing: The religious beliefs of the core Founders were convoluted. It is simply not possible to simplistically to classify them as Christians OR Deists OR...well, anything else for that matter. In many cases we have to determine what we mean by "Christian" or by "Deist"...and the definitions are not always what we might assume they are. I'm one of those folks who believes that to see them as strictly separate is to create a false dichotomy. We need to account for the presence of Unitarianism (rationalistic liberal Christianity) which so heavily influenced Jefferson and for that matter Adams-a true third way if there ever was one. UU minister Forrest Church has written much about this subject.

It seems to me that God did matter to the Founding Fathers-a great deal-and that the Founders were pretty serious about the importance of religion in civil society. I can't get behind the notion that they were revolutionary-era equivalents of the ACLU. But that being said their religious views (it is important to stress views in the plural) likely didn't sync up perfectly with orthodox Christianity either. Jefferson in particular had no problem criticizing the church, and the Founders were quite comfortable embracing some aspects of the Enlightenment. If they were not the 18th Century proto-ACLU neither were they evangelical Christians of the ilk of Pat Robertson. In fact it seems to me the greatest part of their legacy was their commitment to religious liberty, tolerance and pluralism-a legacy that stands on its own completely independently of whatever their own personal beliefs may have been. This seems to be especially true in the case of Washington. GW's own writings do not clearly spell out his beliefs (a fairly compelling case can be made either way-Lillback presents much compelling, if not entirely persuasive, material). It is not possible to determine the motivations for the great man's silence on the matter-he may have been trying to avoid a display of partiality; or perhaps he understood the importance of minimizing whatever deistic tendencies he may have had.

The bottom line, however, is that it really doesn't matter. Washington & Co bequeathed a tremendous gift to the United States: A concept of religious liberty that allowed our nation to avoid the religious wars that so traumatized Europe. THAT was an immensely precious gift, and is truly something to be proud of. In that spirit, thank you to Washington and the Founders all-and Happy Independence Day!

Logos and the Tao

Apparently I'm not the first to notice the parallel:

The Logos and the Tao

The Tao, Logos and Christ

Both well worth the read.

A few reasons...

I've mentioned several times that my views don't fall neatly into the Left-Right dichotomy when it comes to religion (or most anything for that matter). To that end here are some brief thoughts I have on what that's the case.

First 5 reasons why people think (rightly so) that I'm a liberal:

1. I'm not uptight about my beliefs and my sense of humor frequently borders on, if not crosses directly into, blasphemous territory. I am a loyal South Park viewer, and I try not to take minute matters of faith too seriously (see point 4 below). Most importantly, however, I just try not to be a dick. Too many people I know, both militant atheists and Christian apologists, come across as arrogant pricks when it comes to religion. God willing that will never be me.
2. I'm relatively progressive-for instance I support things like women's ordination, the inclusion of gays and lesbians, and I believe in many ways society has gotten better as we've become more tolerant and more inclusive (of course society has also regressed a little but by and large we've seen pretty impressive improvements). I am inclined to believe in progressive revelation of Truth, and as such am more like Bill Clinton, who wanted to build a bridge to the future, rather than like Bob Dole who wanted to build a bridge to the past, if I may use the metaphors from the '96 election.
3. As everybody well knows I am a universalist in the cross-cultural sense of the word. I'm not parochial or provincial when it comes to religion-I deeply respect my own tradition, but I am more than willing to draw insights from others. There is only One Ultimate Truth after all. My semi-cosmopolitan approach is not rooted in a wishy-washy desire to be nice and all inclusive (some religious traditions I consider very much sub-par, such as Scientology), but rather rooted in the belief that the One God has been active-wearing masks if you will-across time and history, even if many were not consciously aware of it.
4. I believe that Christianity is a Way of Life that leads to Truth (notice my indirect reference to John 14:6 there?) and as such I believe orthopraxy, at the end of the day, outranks orthodoxy. That's not to say what we believe doesn't matter-it does a great deal-but it is ultimately action and not affirmation that makes the difference. And for that matter as Karen Armstrong has pointed out belief is not simply intellectual assent to a set of propositions but a deep commitment of the whole person. It is an internal affair of the heart, not simply theological constructs existing in the mind or professed on the lips, that are most important. The parable of the Good Samaritan is a powerful reminder that religious heretics may be the ones who do right. And Armstrong's insistence that compassion is the common ground of religious faith makes her a modern-day prophet in my eyes, even if I don't see eye-to-eye with her theologically.
5. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, I believe the individual is capable of discerning Truth for themselves without relying on an external source. In this way I am more Buddhist than Christian-it was the Buddha who said “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” and "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." Admittedly our reason is fallible, but I believe when properly used-emphasis on properly used-we are capable of attaining the measure of Truth we need. My Grandfather always says that while we frequently say "Let your conscience be your guide" we SHOULD say "Let your informed conscience be your guide." To that I say amen-though with a bit of a caveat, for while we can be lamps unto ourselves we still need fuel-hence the need for our traditions.

Now 5 reasons why people think (rightly) that I'm a conservative:

1. I am not in the business of believing that Christianity can mean whatever its adherents deem it to mean. Real Christianity is dependent on a few elements that go beyond simply the teachings of Jesus. These include the Creeds and such core doctrines as the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection and so forth. I affirm what Huston Smith called in The Soul of Christianity the "Great Tradition", which is to say Christianity before it split into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (and later Protestantism). Smith brilliantly describes this creedal tradition as the "Christian Torah" and the various forms of Christianity as a "midrash". I affirm an open, generous orthodoxy, but its still orthodoxy. I do not believe one can jettison the foundation of Christianity and still lay claim to the label.
2. I lean in the conservative direction when it comes to human nature. I'm not an adherent to the liberal idea that most human problems are systemic and can be dealt with by social engineering; I believe the Kingdom of Heaven begins with man being born again. Liberal religion has always seemed to me to be naive, if not completely inept, with handling the existence of evil. Now Christianity has gone overboard at times-the idea of total depravity and the wretchedness of humanity needs to be toned down. Sin means to "miss the mark" and I think the Eastern Orthodox idea of sin as a pervasive disease, and the Jewish idea of competing impulses within humanity (which in a Cherokee story were portrayed up as good and bad wolves) are helpful here. Helpful too is understanding the Fall as Iraneus, the Church Father, understood it-it was an act of immaturity and not purely disobedience. The bottom line, though, is that I still see a need for the concept of sin and recompose, and Christianity has had many good things to say on this point.
3. I do not accept the fallacy that all progress is good, or that humanity has been on a purely upward track. Modernity has been a curse as well as a blessing-the technology boon that gave us modern medicine also gave us the nuclear bomb, a point we'd do well to remember. In most ways human nature (see point 2 above) has remained fundamentally the same, unaltered by the progress we've made on various social issues. Technology has not elevated us to a higher state of being and though we pride ourselves on being "civilized" the beastly wolf within Christianity still hunts within our hearts. This reinforces further that the Kingdom of God begins within. For this reason I do not consider the experiences of the present to be greater than the past-many religious liberals regard modern experience as effectively infallible. I don't. In most ways I think the wisdom of the past-updated to account for the times if need be-is as valuable today as it was in the time of the Buddha or Christ.
4. I tend to believe that when it comes to religion to a certain degree one has to accept the bad with the good (or the wheat and the chaff if you prefer a Biblical analogy). There is a bit of hypocrisy on my matter-I do take a somewhat cafeteria approach to religion, picking and choosing-but within my own tradition I don't feel we can simply ignore those elements that seem antiquated, irrelevant, are too difficult, offensive, or what have you. Case in point: I don't believe in scissoring out those barbaric texts in the Hebrew Bible. Why? As Karen Armstrong says our struggle to find meaning and virtue in these texts is good practice for doing the same in ordinary life. An analogy I use is that I frequently download entire albums, not simply the songs I know I like-I've found with time I come to appreciate the lesser known songs on the albums, as I did just the other day with a Michael Card album I downloaded from iTunes. And as Rabbi Shmuley Boteach points out in Judaism for Everyone there may be value to those religious laws that we miss at first blush. This may seem to contradict what I said about the individual in the previous section, but only if we don't allow for the possibility that the individual may chose some of the disciplines, understanding their benefits. Some things deserve a closer look than the modern eye is generally willing to give.
5. Finally, there is a need for reverence in faith. Religious liberalism, whether in embracing social action to the exclusion of the spiritual, reason to the extent or crowding out the transcendent, or the emotional to the loss of the discipline (a la the New Age), you loose the core element of respect for the Divine that permeates the 3 great monotheisms and the Eastern religions as well for that matter. Tolerance can, and has, gotten a bit out of hand in recent years-a professor I had at Roberts once remarked that in the past tolerance meant we would get along without killing each other over differences; today it means that somehow we are all right about everything no matter what our disagreement may be. Stephen Prothero points out that in this day and age that approach isn't only wrong its downright dangerous, for papering over differences in ideology does no one any favors. Huston Smith satirically remarked that modern America is afflicted with "judgment-a-phobia", and I agree with him. One can be very tolerant without giving up their reverence and respect for the Divine. The two are not mutually exclusive.
   

I'd like to close with a though from Father Jerome Machar, of the Abbey of the Genesee. When I asked him two weeks ago what his thoughts were on the Pharisees he defined the modern Pharisee as a Trappist monk (lest anyone be confused Father Jerome is a Trappist monk). Father Jereome noted that following the rules and prescriptions of Catholicism can be a good thing or a bad thing-for those who are yearning for God's Love and do not forget the compassion at the heart of the Gospel they are wonderful. For those who forget the Love the rules become meaningless and without compassion they may displace love as the heart of faith. As Huston Smith noted, the disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees was not over whether God was compassionate or holy (both agreed that He was both) but over the proper emphasis of faith. That difference proved to be be a splitting point between Christianity and Judaism-as Boteach has written Judaism places a higher premium on law than love to this very day. It is in that spirit that I recognize what Father Jerome was saying: There is a trap in falling into extremes. It is in that spirit that I continue to be both liberal and conservative, and as I've enumerated above, there are just a few reasons why...

Quote of the Day

The skeptic Carl Sagan asked the Dalai Lama what would he do if a fundamental tenet of his religion (reincarnation) were definitively disproved by science. The Dalai Lama answered with a grin "If science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation... but it's going to be mighty hard to disprove reincarnation."

Spirituality = Universality

"In the beginning was the Tao. All things issue from it, all things return to it...Every being in the universe is an expression of the Tao...the Tao gives birth to all things, nourishes them, maintains them." - The Tao Te Ching, circa 6th Century BCE

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." - The Gospel according to St. John, 1st Century CE

One reason why the spiritual philosophy of Taoism was of such value in helping me to lay a foundation for believing in Christianity.