Dance of the Mind

world religions, philosophy, books, film and life

The Squid and the Whale (2005)

February 25th, 2010

I’ve been meaning to make my way through my movie collection.  We need more space on our shelves!  So far, all I’ve watched is “The Squid and the Whale” which is going to have to remain in the collection.  It’s just too good to let go!  (It’s written by Noah Baumbach, produced by Wes Anderson.)

I’m not sure I exactly relate to the film.  I grew up in a relatively stable household and am raising my kids in a relatively stable household.   No affairs.  No divorce.  But it sure seems boring compared to the family in this film!  What would it be like to grow up with two writers?  Dinner conversation would have to be fascinating, be ye a Philistine or not.  What I remember most from my childhood dinners around the table are pea jokes and bad manners. Conversation was anything but stimulating and very rarely interesting.  I typically read books through dinner as a means of distraction.  Family dinners are more interesting now that I have my own little family, I suppose.  But I’m not sure my kids would concur.  They might prefer pea jokes and bad manners.  And I still crave intellectual discussion, which just doesn’t happen as often as I’d like.  I don’t think I could handle the self-absorption that goes along with it, however.  It’s no wonder the Berkman’s (played by Laura Linney and Jeff Daniels) end up divorced.

The film is primarily about the children who are trying to make sense of the world after their parents divorce.  I think it is true that children tend to adopt their parents attitudes without realizing it.  My 18 year-old son just recently realized that many of his attitudes are ours and not necessarily his own.  He’s been trying to weed out whether he genuinely agrees with us or not.  I wonder if you can ever really tease out where your parents ideas end and yours begin?

Roger Ebert says, “The Squid and the Whale” is essentially about how we grow up by absorbing what is useful in our parents and forgiving what is not.   Amen to that!

Tony Compolo on Hating the Sin

February 24th, 2010

Tony Compolo remains my all-time favorite Christian evangelist! I LOVE this guy!!  (My husband and I took his class called “Affluenza” many moons ago.)

Do you agree with the standard Christian sentiment: “Love the sinner, hate the sin”?  If so, Compolo says you have completely misunderstood Jesus’ teaching. Jesus said, love the sinner, hate your own sin. Once you rid yourself of sin, then perhaps you have the right to address the sin in others.  Until then, it is not your place to judge.

John Wesley and the Age of Reason

February 23rd, 2010

I grew up Methodist. When I met my Catholic husband and he wanted me to convert to Catholicism, I said, “That’s fine. But we’re getting married in the Methodist Church, first.”. And so, we did.  It took me three full years before I could commit to converting to Catholicism, and then eight more to leave it.

When I told my husband I could no longer be Catholic, I fully believed he would see it as grounds for divorce. But he didn’t. He happily attended a little Methodist Church with me. When I decided to leave Christianity altogether, he left, too. And now that I’ve decided to go back to the Methodist Church, he is right by my side. (We seem to have fallen into the group known as the “Happy Heretics” which I’m sure is quite fitting, although I was hoping for a more mystical title!)

I know far more about Catholicism (and Southern Baptists, Unitarian Universalists and Buddhism for that matter) than I do about Methodism. Isn’t that how it always is? Rarely do you think of taking a tour of the town in which you have always lived even though you are eager to learn about the towns you visit. This go ’round I’ve decided to look upon Methodism as a visitor, so signed up for a class on John Wesley. I’ve only been to one class so far and decided to see what other information was available. I stumbled upon a very interesting video about John Wesley that was right up my alley, called “John Wesley and the Age of Reason” (Rev Drs Jim Stuart & David Bell)…

Lent

February 22nd, 2010

It is very rare that I miss an Ash Wednesday service because Easter has always been my most favorite Christian holiday, even when I haven’t been particularly fond of Christianity.  It is Ash Wednesday that sets Easter in motion.  The Ash Wednesday service we attended last week was beautiful.  We each wrote upon a piece of paper what it is we want to let go.  (Or we twisted or folded the paper in some way that was symbolic of what it is we want to let go.)  All of these individual pieces of paper were burned and the ashes from each were combined and placed upon our foreheads, collectively, as a symbol of letting go.

I love this ritual because, for me, Ash Wednesday is about giving up the belief that everything should be how we want it to be.  Let’s face it.  When things turn out to be other than how we want them to be, we feel angry or victimized.  Ash Wednesday is a reminder of our mortality and limitations.   It’s kind of like realizing that we aren’t God – the world isn’t required to behave how we think it should behave.  Once we figure this out, it’s much easier to quit feeling like we are a victims of circumstances and we are paradoxically better able to shape our lives.  All the moaning, complaining, blame or denial in the world is not going to change anything.  We have to be willing to accept our circumstances as they are before we can do anything about them.  Just wanting things to be different will simply keep us wanting.  It will change nothing. Acceptance, and subsequent responsibility (the ability to respond), on the other hand, changes everything.

Lent provides the practice.  By fasting during Lent (letting go of whatever it is we deem must be let go), we allow ourselves to experience hunger.  Unlike desire, hunger is basic and primal.  Most of the time, we don’t have a clue what it is we hunger for because we distract ourselves with petty desires.  Yet when we allow ourselves to genuinely feel hunger, we allow ourselves to come in touch with what is basic and primal to our individual lives.

After the 6 weeks of Lenten practice, we will have experienced hunger and will therefore be prepared to go into the center of whatever it is we have a basic, primal need to change.  During the Lenten season, we have been willing to accept things as they are, knowing fully that there will be consequences for the changes we are about to make, just as Jesus was aware of the consequences of his actions.  Like Jesus, we remain fully willing to accept the consequences. We will not run or change our minds.

Holy Thursday, we say a final fairwell to our old way of being – there is no turning back.

Good Friday, we die to our old way of being.

Holy Saturday, we unflinchingly face every uncomfortable reaction this death causes within us and with others.

Easter – we rise transformed.

(These are ideas I jotted down many moons ago.  I think they were inspired by Richard Rohr, but I’m not sure.)

Joe Stack and The Wolfman

February 21st, 2010

A few days ago, a man named Joe Stack flipped out because of money he owed the IRS, an argument with his wife, and disillusionment with the government and big business.  He very intentionally flew a plane into a building that houses the IRS which is very close to where we live.  I drive by it every day.  Joe Stack and one other person were killed.  Thirteen people were injured, two critically.  It’s amazing there weren’t more injuries when you see the destruction of the Echelon I Building.  It’s horrifying!  It doesn’t seem possible that a small plane could do that sort of damage!

What’s most disconcerting is how many people seem to resonate with Joe Stack’s manifesto, despite the fact that in his manifesto, Stack claimed that violence is the only answer.  I agree with Stack that the government is corrupt, big business is corrupt, much of religion is corrupt, and that the results of that corruption fall especially on the average, ethical person, primarily because we aren’t paying attention.  But is violence the only way to wake people up?  Do we have to become corrupt ourselves in order to protect our personal interests?  I have a difficult time understanding how flying a plane into a building will provide an awakening.  Surely such an act is the epitome of disillusionment itself.   Intentional acts of violence seem to me to do more to strip away liberties than to assure them.   Once it begins, where does it end?

Almost everyone who knew Joe Stack personally is shocked he had this sort of violent anger in him.  Most say he was a primarily calm, happy, hard-working guy.  What makes an otherwise decent human being snap like this?

Perhaps this is an odd connection, but I am going to make it anyway.  My daughter and I saw The Wolfman on the same day Stack flew his plane into the Echelon I Buidling.   A question was repeated several times by Sir John Talbot (played by Anthony Hopkins and I’m paraphrasing) – is it better to let the beast out, or to keep it caged?  I think that’s a really important question.   Maybe people flip out because they have been denying their more bestial natures for far too long.  We really don’t know what is primal and basic to our being, anymore.  It’s kind of like Kafka’s Metamorphosis.  You get stuck in an office shoving paperwork and you slowly become more beast than human, without even realizing it.  One day you wake up and you are a gigantic roach-like beast creeping around the walls or a werewolf on the hunt for human flesh.  Perhaps we human beings deny our animal nature at our own peril.  By trying to contain it, it grows out of control and becomes bigger than we are.

As the gypsy in the film asks, where does beast end and human begin?  Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms, and the autumn moon is bright.

Alan Watts

February 16th, 2010

This is a very cool video based on Alan Watts, with a clarification afterward.  Enjoy!

The little blurb on the video quotes Watts:  “Atheism in the name of God is an abandonment of all religious beliefs . . . giving up the attempt to make sense of the world in terms of any fixed idea or intellectual system. It is becoming again as a child and laying oneself open to reality as it is actually and directly felt, experiencing it without trying to categorize, identify or name it.” – Alan Watts

There are comments under the video claiming that atheism is not a belief because it is simply the disbelief in God. This always cracks me up.  Especially since this IS Alan Watts after all.  Read the full quote:

Atheism in the name of God is an abandonment of all religious beliefs, including atheism, which in practice is the stubbornly held idea that the world is a mindless mechanism. Atheism in the name of God is giving up the attempt to make sense of the world in terms of any fixed idea or intellectual system. It is becoming again as a child and laying oneself open to reality as it is actually and directly felt, experiencing it without trying to categorize, identify or name it. This can be most easily begun by listening to the world with closed eyes, in the same way that one can listen to music without asking what it says or means. This is actually a turn-on a state of consciousness in which the past and future vanish (because they cannot be heard) and in which there is no audible difference yourself and what you are hearing. There is simply universe, an always present happening in which there is no perceptible difference between self and other, or, as in breathing, between what you do and what happens to you. Without losing command of civilized behavior, you have temporarily “regressed” to what Freud called the oceanic feeling of the baby the feeling that we all lost in learning to make distinctions, but that we should have retained as their necessary background, just as there must be empty white paper under this print if you are to read it.

Why is it so many atheists claim they don’t believe in anything just because they don’t believe in God?  Those who say they do not believe in God have at least bought into the intellectual idea that the question of God’s existence is somehow significant, even if it is simply to refute the affirmative response.  But not all of us find the question significant, so the answer doesn’t really matter.   Isn’t it just possible we’ve simply been asking the wrong question for thousands of years and the insistence on answering it  is the problem rather than how it is answered? Perhaps it’s time for all of us to transcend the labels we assign ourselves and one another and move on.

Eighteen!

February 13th, 2010

Tonight was my son’s 18th birthday.  He has been so excited about legally becoming an adult that he’s been driving his family and friends crazy.  Every day: “30 more days until I’m 18; 20 more days until I’m 18; 10 more days until I’m 18; 2 more days until I’m 18; 6 hours until I’m 18.”  First thing he did this morning was to get his drivers license updated.   By law, teens cannot drive after midnight until they turn 18.  Now he can be out all night driving around town.  Wonderful!

I was at the grocery store and saw a stuffed bear in a black leather jacket and white t-shirt holding a box of Reese’s Peanut Butter cups.  My immediate reaction was that it would be a great gift for my son!   He loves Reese’s and it was such a cute bear.  But I must have been suffering a momentary slip into the past as a buffer to the reality that my son is not my little guy anymore.  He would have loved it 6 years ago.  He might even find it endearing if a girlfriend bought it for him, but not his mother.  What was I thinking?  It really hit me hard, in the middle of the grocery store, that my baby is now legally an adult.   The years go so fast!

I remember getting on an elevator, holding my brand spanking new baby boy, with a woman who was admiring him.   As she got off of the elevator, she told me that her children were grown and that every stage is wonderful.  “Enjoy it.  It will be over before you know it.”   I can’t even begin to tell you how much that meant to me.   When my babies were little, I was surrounded by overwhelmed moms who said just the opposite and would console one another with how horrible there kids were in various stages.  The terrible twos.  The narcissistic sixes.   The turbulent teens.  And when that second child comes along, many warned that the difficulties would grow exponentially.

Over the years, that woman on the elevator turned out to be a godsend.  I have never forgotten her.  When things got rough, I held on to what she said and was almost always able to see the beauty in each stage of development.  It truly is wondrous.  Even when you are up after 1:00 a.m. because your son has the car but hasn’t returned home yet and hasn’t bothered to check in because it’s his 18th birthday and he seems to think that somehow miraculously changes all the rules.

Ah!  There he is, just as I finish writing those words, thank goodness.  My beautiful 18 year old, home from wherever it is he’s been, wearing his bathrobe with a guitar slung over his back and a Fender fedora on his head.  I can sleep easy now that my baby adult son is home safe and sound.

BTW – I don’t know what happened to my blog.   I installed a really cool child theme for Thematic, tried to add a numeric compare function to it, and my blog completely disappeared.  I love tweaking themes but it always ends up being disastrous.  You’d think I’d know better by now!  The whole site was blank, even the login panel.  So I reloaded Wordpress.  I’ll try to find the posts tomorrow.  But for now, I must go to bed.  I have to take a defensive driving class in the morning for having made a right on red at a no right on red light.   Can’t wait.

Sudden Awakening

February 5th, 2010

Eli Jaxon-Bear’s Sudden Awakening was another book I found for $1.00 in the clearance section of the HalfPrice Bookstore next to my daughter’s dance class. I bought it because I attended an Enneagram class several years ago given at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Austin by one of his students from Leela.  I had a HUGE self-realization while reading his book, The Enneagram of Liberation, which had been assigned for the class Just a little back ground info.  I’m a seven onthe Enneagram scale.  This has been confirmed by several Enneagram practitioners including those from Leela, so I’m assuming it is an accurate assessment.  Everyone who knows me and knows about the Enneagram seems to think it’s a good fit.   Sevens are experience gluttons.   We have difficulty sticking with anything for long because we are always off seeking the next, new experience or grand idea.  Because we tend toward gluttony, our movement toward wholeness, according to Jaxon-Bear, is through “sobriety”.

I had already been through Richard Rohr’s class on the Enneagram as well as a class given by a Jesuit priest who was a psychologist and expert on the Enneagram in San Diego, so none of this was news to me when I took the class offered through the Leela Foundation.  But what I hadn’t considered before reading Jaxon-Bear’s book was that particular kinds of spiritual seeking can be a form of “gluttony”.   I wasn’t into the sort of religious experience people try to effect through meditation or drugs. That has always seemed to me more like gluttony than spirituality.   What I was into, however, was trying to figure out “the code”.  (I don’t know how else to put it.)   I felt certain that if I just studied enough, prayed enough, meditated enough… I’d figure out the spiritual secrets of the universe which would, in turn, “save the world”.  In Enneagram, Jaxon-Bear wrote:

Sevens love to skate on new ideas.  This is a place of synthetic or associative thinking.  They love to bring together new and interesting combinations… These are the future thinkers.  For them, the present is made tolerable by the future.  Sevens always envision us moving into a Golden Age.  Things are going to get better.  Thoughts of the future are used to avoid the pain in the present moment.

This hit me like a ton of bricks.  It’s something like Nietzsche’s idea of Eternal Recurrence.   Would you be willing to live your life over and over and over again, as it is now – warts, wars and all?  Nietzsche had chronic migraines and serious, painful stomach issues.  This wasn’t coming from a man who was living a care free life.   But it makes sense.  We aren’t living in the future.  We are living now.   If your focus is on a “better life” in the future rather than gratefulness and verve for life as it is, then according to Nietzsche, you aren’t living.

Anyway, I was excited to happen upon another book by Eli Jaxon-Bear because I had gotten so much out of his first book.  Unfortunately, the primary focus of Sudden Awakening seems to me to be on the very thing Jaxon-Bear warned sevens against in his previous book.   It’s full of “wake up so you can save the world” mentality.  I checked out the Leela Foundation on-line and the bi-line is: “Dedicated to World Peace and Freedom through Self-Realization”.   At one point in the book he writes, “Perhaps the only hope for the planet lies in our willingness to end our personal suffering.”

It makes me think of that George Carlin skit where he wonders if human beings have reached a new pinnacle of egoic arrogance by thinking we can “save the planet”.  Carlin reminds us that the planet will be just fine.  It will recover.  It is human beings who are fucked!

Of course, I don’t disagree that there is value in ending our personal suffering.  Healing is healing and has a wide-reaching ripple effect that should never be underestimated.  And I truly got a lot out of reading Sudden Awakening.   Jaxon-Bear is fully of psychological insight.  But I can’t help but wonder:  if we place an urgency on human beings “waking up” in order to “save the world”, how is that not an attachment to the ego?   Help me out here!

How can we possibly put an end to our own personal suffering if our primary reason for doing so is to save the world?   This seems to me to be a double egoic attachment to waking up which I suppose keeps spiritual gurus in business.  It’s a great sales pitch:  “buy our services and we will help you ‘wake up’ which will put an end to personal suffering and world salvation will be yours.  But if we “do in order to get”, is that truly an awakening?   Maybe Jaxon-Bear needs to re-read the book he wrote on the Enneagram.  Especially the part about the Sevens.  :)

Yeshua of Nazareth

February 3rd, 2010

Every Wednesday night I drop my daughter off at dance, and I’m left with an hour to kill. Where do I kill that hour? At the new HalfPrice Bookstore that just moved in 2 minutes from the dance studio! This poses a bit of a problem because I am a used book junkie! My son’s guitar lesson used to be in the same center as the largest HalfPrice Bookstore in town and my library grew by leaps and bounds during that time period. There is no way I could possibly read every book I bought, then. But they were all great books at a fantastic price!

Money is really tight so I can no longer afford to purchase books I don’t have time to read. However, I discovered the clearance section at HalfPrice when we were looking for textbooks for homeschooling purposes. It’s amazing what you can find for 50 cents or a dollar in the clearance section!

Last Wednesday, I found a little out-of-print book called Yeshua of Nazareth by Richard W. Chilson for a dollar and I am so glad to have read it. It offered a nice balance to Spong’s book. Chilson studied Buddhism at the California Institute for Integral Studies and he says this practice brought him back to Jesus. When I converted to Catholicism just after I married my Catholic husband, I was assigned a sponsor who had grown up Methodist but had become a Buddhist in his young adulthood. He also claimed that it was Buddhism that brought him back to Jesus, and that the Buddhists all encouraged him to return – to follow where he was being “led”. He ended up in Roman Catholicism where he met the most wonderful woman you could ever possibly meet! (Physically blind, but had tremendous sight!!)

Chilson is a Paulist Priest (Roman Catholic) and finds no conflict between the Christian and Buddhist traditions. He says “the way of Jesus” belongs side by side with the ways of all of the other great spiritual masters and traditions, but that it is especially difficult for Christians to discover the way of Jesus because we’ve been brainwashed by centuries of theological formulation and religious practice.

Yeshua of Nazareth is an attempt to reintroduce us to what Jesus taught, outside the teachings of religious institutions. Chilson works through many of Jesus’ parables in a poetic, personal, and somewhat conversational manner (not sure what to call the style he uses, but it works). He weaves in Sufi tales and Buddhist wisdom.

Chilson says that some of Jesus’ main teachings are forgiveness in the place of judgment. Full acknowledgment of anger so that it can be dealt with rather than piously suppressed. Letting go of anxiety through trust. Gratitude. Hospitality. Compassion. Chilson says that the terms used in Jesus times to describe God’s “kingdom” no longer work for us today. We don’t have an appropriate relationship to the terms (both carry far too much baggage). He suggests a better way for us to understand what Jesus meant by “God’s Kingdom” or “Heaven” is Love’s Dominion. God rules in Love’s Dominion. This is where the God of Love rules.

Two teachings that particularly struck me…

According to Chilson, the repression of any individual, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. is not based on Jesus’ teaching because such repression is based on judgment, and Jesus stood outside of judgment. Judgment is not part of “Love’s Dominion.”

Nor was Jesus all about “justice”. Most of us know the parable of the prodigal son, but Chilson presents it just slightly differently than I’ve heard it presented before. For each of Jesus’ parables, he suggests we try and identify with every character in them. In the parable of the prodigal son, for instance, the youngest son has run off with all of his father’s money and squandered it. We usually identify with the father or the son in this parable, but Chilson turns his attention to the eldest son. The eldest son has been the model son. Totally obedient to his father. So he is very irritated when the younger son, who has been anything but obedient, gets a party for coming home. We can understand why the father would want to throw a party. He’s happy his son is home. But we can also understand why this would completely irritate his older brother. The eldest son is angry with his father, because his father has never thrown a party for him even though he has always done what the father asks of him. Chilson says that Jesus is suggesting it is better to attend a valid celebration than to avoid it just because you think “it isn’t fair”. That’s all about ego. Not Love’s Dominion.

Or consider the parable of the workers in the vineyard. The master went out early and hired several laborers who agreed to work for a denarius a day. Later in the day, he hired more workers and told them he would give them fair pay. When it was time to pay all of the workers, those who had worked for hours were payed the denarius, as were those who had only been there an hour. Of course those who had worked longer felt this was unfair. But the master reprimanded them and told them he was doing no wrong. They had agreed to the pay. Chilson reminds us, “”If we believe we did something worthwhile, we are quick to look for acknowledgment and reward. Like those hired first, or the elder son. Our first cry will be ‘where’s the justice in this?’ ” But that cry, alas, is one that emanates from the ego that’s always sizing up things and trying to hog center stage.”

Chilson suggests we read, with an open mind, St. Paul, St. John, St. Francis of Assissi, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Julian of Norwich, Martin Luther King Jr., Teresa of Calcultta. But also, don’t forget Guatama the Buddha, Mohammed the Prophet, Lao Tsu, Ramakrishna, the Christian Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, and, wait for it……A Course in Miracles. ACIM continues to be recommended by a wider and wider circle of people I admire.

Eternal Life: A New Vision

January 31st, 2010

John Shelby Spong was the Episcopal Bishop of Newark until his retirement in 2000 and he has been an outspoken critic of Christianity (while remaining one) for many years.  His book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die was somewhat life changing for me in that it confirmed my discomfort with Christianity.  I resonated with Spong’s term, “Christians in Exile”.

I left the church right after I read Spong’s book.  It gave me permission, I suppose.  But for whatever reason, after 10 years of being “out”, my husband and I just joined a mainstream United Methodist Church in November of 2009.   I’m not yet sure exactly why it is I’m back at church.  The idea of a personal God no longer works for me nor do I believe any church is an authority on God.  Both ideas seem absolutely ridiculous to me, now.  As far as I can tell, however, the United Methodist Church continues to insist upon the existence of a personal God and continues to describe itself as an authority on God. But since I’ve never heard of excommunication in the Methodist Church, I suppose it’s OK I’m there even if I disagree with some of its fundamental precepts.  Several of the people I most admire, who sit very far outside mainstream Christianity, continue to be a part of their Methodist communities, so I’m probably safe.   I’m just not exactly sure why it is I’m back, yet.  I read an excerpt from Spong’s Eternal Life: A New Vision, which seemed like the book might actually provide some insight into my return to church.  I checked it out and read it cover to cover.  But it didn’t help at all.  Guess I’ll just have to figure that one out on my own.  :)

That said, I’m not exactly sure what to make of Spong’s book. Spong says we have to be able to probe religion as an outsider in order to see through it.  I’ve been on the outside of religion for over a decade, and personally, I wonder if its ever possible to truly be on the outside of it once heavily immersed within it?   All of Western society has been immersed in religious ideology for thousands of years, so none of us can exactly claim to be immune to religious immersion, no matter how many generations of atheists our family can boast.  The Enlightenment itself came out of a religious world view.  To this day, there are elements of original sin that remain within the scientific world view that are very difficult to tease out.   Plus, the idea that there is some sort of absolute truth that can be discovered through scientific inquiry is directly related to the Western religious view that meaning can be “found”.

Spong asks:

Does religion, as it has been practiced in human history, actually make us more human or less human?  Is it possible that religion, rather than transforming reality, enables us to hide from reality, a reality which we are not emotionally equipped to embrace?  Is religion in all its forms, as Marx suggested, an opiate for the people?  Is the very function of religion calculated to provide us with a believable denial of the angst that accompanies self-consciousness?  Beyond those questions is the deeper probe into religion’s origins.  Was the development of the various religions a human inevitability?  Is the anxiety of self-consciousness so great that only the belief in the existence of an external supernatural deity, who has the power to come to our aid, will ever quiet our fears?  Is God, or is religion now revealed as little more than a human creation?  These are the tough questions which we must now pursue.

I think Spong is right.  It is high time we pursue these questions. When I started asking such questions 10 years ago, I started with my minister friends and one of them has never talked to me again.  It was too threatening.  But it’s ten years later.  We’ve lived through 9/11 and all of the questions and divisions that created, and I think we have potentially grown up, at least a little bit, since then.  Maybe we are more ready to face these questions now than we were 10 years ago?  Sometimes I wonder if my desire to return to a church setting (besides the bizarre loyalty I feel toward Methodism) has to do with easing the transition?  I know how difficult and isolating it is to face these sorts of questions.  But face them we must!  And if we could face them as a community, all the better!

What I’m not convinced of, however, is Spong’s idea that the only reason religion was created was to provide a means to hide from reality.  I think it is definitely true of the failed attempt to merge abstract Greek rationalism and Jewish individualism.  Nietzsche said (through the madman in Zarathustra) that  God is dead and that it is we who killed him.  But alas, the madman realized he had come too soon, and he prophesied that it would take 300 years for people to finally realize that God is dead.  Nietzsche was including the atheistic rationalists in this prophecy, not just those who still maintained a belief in God.  Mankind attempted, long ago, to merge the Jewish God with the idea of an abstract absolute from Greek rationalism.  That which cannot be named became a Greek value (an idea/noun) rather than the integral part of life (a process/verb) that YHWH had been for the Jews.   Nietzsche saw that God, understood as an abstract value, is not sustainable because it inevitably creates narcissism, division, and eventually nihilism.  (Think of literalist fundies who look forward to end of world times so they can go to heaven.)  God is dead, and it is we who killed Him.  And we cannot go back and fix it.  That understanding, however faulty, is now and forever a part of our heritage.   It is part of what makes us us – whether or not it was a “necessary” idea in the first place.

But much of religion is more art than belief, isn’t it?  As Joseph Campbell said, it is the final mask before reality.  As art, it doesn’t so much provide security as it provides inspiration through the imaginative imitation of life.  In this sense, it provides the strength and courage necessary to face reality.  And it also adds to the enjoyment of life.

Spong says that truth is not religion’s ultimate agenda; security is.   When religion is considered to be under the authority of “church” or a literal interpretation of a sacred text, then security is definitely the name of the game.  But out of religion have come practices like meditation, contemplative prayer, and other practices that help us face reality, rather than hide from it.  There seems to be some proof that communal meditation is more effective than individual meditation in keeping people engaged in the practice.   And there is the artistic representation within religion that helps us move out of our ego and into the fuller experience of “oneness”.

My daughter and I just recently finished watching Carl Sagan’s Cosmos which does a beautiful job of making you incredulous that humanity should exist at all.  The belief that I was intentionally created by a creator God doesn’t make me feel near as grateful as knowing that my existence occurred by mere chance.  What a wonderful gift life is when you know it happened because all of the right elements just happened to be in place at the right time!  So I entirely agree with Spong that science has opened our eyes to how unique the human experience is and that it helps us realize how horrific it is to take such a chance event for granted.  But hasn’t art (and artistic religious expression) been doing the same thing, in a different way, for much longer?

I agree with Spong that dogmatic religion has come out of political need.  No argument with me there.  Religion is an excellent way to control the masses.    Whenever one religion claims to have a monopoly on God, you can be assured that religion is making the claim for political gain.  But do Eastern religions make this claim in the same way western religions do?  I have yet to meet a Buddhist who claims to believe in God.  In fact, it was through Buddhism that I was able to realize that the question, “Do you believe in God?” is itself a faulty question because it’s based on circular reasoning.  Whichever way you answer (“yes” or “no”) can only point back to the question itself – not to any sort of reality.   That’s why, I am told, Buddhists don’t “believe in” God.   The answer is based on a nonsensical question.

Spong says that we have to stop searching for meaning within religion.  Fair enough.  But not all religion is about searching for meaning, is it?  I remember hearing the Dali Lama say that if we are all evolving from pre-Cambrian sludge, then we might as well affect that evolution in the most beneficial way possible and that religious discipline can help us do this because it helps us acquire awareness.  We create all the meaning there is so we might as well create what is beneficial rather than what is harmful.  In that sense, it’s not about seeking.  It’s about creating.    Spong’s correct, however.  The typical Western idea of religion is definitely about finding some truth “out there”.   But that’s often the basic premise behind many atheistic rationalistic perspectives, too, isn’t it?

Surely we don’t seek meaning so much as we seek the experience of being alive.   And perhaps that is Spong’s point?  If so, right on! Live the questions!!

But does the use of artistic and religious imagination keep us from living or does it help us live more fully?  Maybe the answer depends on the person/society and not an absolute “truth”.

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Sash Lewis.