Yesterday, I listened to Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC/Chapel Hill, speak on suffering. He had been an evangelical at one time, but is now agnostic. His views were interesting and freeing.
In June, when I started this blog, I had suggested that those who base their authority mainly on reason, but have not denied tradition are agnostics. Otherwise, reason alone will lead to atheism, as it rejects religion's role in human life. I believe this describes Dr. Ehrman. The atheist's agenda is to undermine any value in religion and undo all religious conviction and commitment. Even though Dr. Ehrman does not believe that religion's purpose serves as the only moral compass for man, he does say that the "new atheists" do not seem to have understanding of religion's "good".
Just recently, I read the summarization of a book "Border Lines" (Quadralateral Thoughts' side-bar recommended books). This author's theory is Jewish montheism leaves room for the development of Christian expression, as one of many expressions of faith.
I find this is an interesting concept, as I do believe that this is how man is made. Difference and uniqueness imprint us from our DNA to our fingerprints. This fact alone should underwrite the need for diversity of understanding and functioning of one's faith. Faith should wear no labels, really.
I think that if "Border Lines' is correct in its analysis, then, it also would underwrtie scholarship's understanding of religion and the different ways of understanding in the history of traditions, philosophy of religions, and the psychology of religion. These divisions represent different approaches from experience, tradition, and reason. I find that fascinating and liberating!
So, what would be the "correct" term for one that bases their faith on reason (philosophy of religion), agnostic mysticism; one who bases their understanding on experience (psychology of religion), an existentialist humanitarian; one who bases their understanding on tradition (history of religion), a social/political/cultural reformer....I know I am indentified with agnostic mysticism, but am grappling with the implications of the others...
Each one defines their faith on faith (agnostic mysticism), hope (existential humanitarian), and love (reformer)....and all are connected to the "real world" of the here and now....and is not defined by creed (religion's d0gmatics), or religion (labels of definitions based on dogmatics). it is an undefined faith in life itself, not a system, a culture, or group identity.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Question of Christian Faith
Most Christians have a story, whether they came to faith through an personal experience, or were brought up in Church. These Christian stories are what bring meaning and/or understanding of what is of value and why. Different denominations, as well as the Catholic or Orthodox faith would understand these meanings differently and thereby would impact one's life differently.'
I do not believe that a person's faith commitment is defined in childhood, as understanding one's faith is a lifelong process. And life's commitments, contingencies and questions all impact how one evaluates their faith and how they continue or discontinue that faith.
In coming to faith, I had understood an unconditionality to love that I had never known and desparately needed to believe. But, as understanding changes due to many variables, I have chosen to distance myself from such a simplistic understanding, as God is not "active" in the way I had understood in my earlier experience and understanding. God is the great unknown mystery of life. He is not confined within any text, or within nature itself, but is seen in many ways through the human capacity for love, inspiration, creativity, hope and rationality. These are the ways in which I long to worship, not in a particular form, but a particular thrust.
I am glad that my Christian faith has been impacted by American ideals of justice before law, liberty to pursue goals or values that mean the most to me.
I am fortunate to be in a free nation, which allows freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Americans need to understand their faith as one that represents a God that allows individual difference and values individual uniqueness.
I'm hoping that my faith journey will not be defined by what I do not believe, as that has been of major importance in throwing off what is unvaluable to me, but what I choose to be committed to and why those commitments are of importance. Faith, then, becomes a flexible, but defining choice.
I do not believe that a person's faith commitment is defined in childhood, as understanding one's faith is a lifelong process. And life's commitments, contingencies and questions all impact how one evaluates their faith and how they continue or discontinue that faith.
In coming to faith, I had understood an unconditionality to love that I had never known and desparately needed to believe. But, as understanding changes due to many variables, I have chosen to distance myself from such a simplistic understanding, as God is not "active" in the way I had understood in my earlier experience and understanding. God is the great unknown mystery of life. He is not confined within any text, or within nature itself, but is seen in many ways through the human capacity for love, inspiration, creativity, hope and rationality. These are the ways in which I long to worship, not in a particular form, but a particular thrust.
I am glad that my Christian faith has been impacted by American ideals of justice before law, liberty to pursue goals or values that mean the most to me.
I am fortunate to be in a free nation, which allows freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Americans need to understand their faith as one that represents a God that allows individual difference and values individual uniqueness.
I'm hoping that my faith journey will not be defined by what I do not believe, as that has been of major importance in throwing off what is unvaluable to me, but what I choose to be committed to and why those commitments are of importance. Faith, then, becomes a flexible, but defining choice.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Church and Discrimination
Historically, the traditional Church becomes discriminatory. Discrimination among Christians is based on many authorities. These authorities are limiting factors in understanding the universal principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Many Christians would say that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were misguided goals of an individual's life. I would like to take them one by one and discuss what I believe is the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
Life. Life is a human universal. Without life, we can not pursue any other opportunity. Life is experienced by the individual. Therefore, individual life must be protected, first and foremost. But, how is life defined? Life can be defined by it's physicality, as well as it's "abundance". If life is limited to the physical aspects, without supporting its abundance, life seems futile. The futility of life is found when man ceases to have "rewards" for his labor, or hope for his goals. While life's rewards and goals are aspects of a flourishing life, life cannot be realized apart from proper government that recognizes the individual's right to pursue his own ends.
Liberty. Government, such as we have in America, encourages engagement and recognizes everyone's right to pursue life's abundance as they deem fit, within the boundaries of law. This is how liberty is defined. But, traditional Christians do not support an individual's right to pursue his own ends, as Christians define life as a commitment to the "cause of the Kingdom of God" (how is the Kingdom defined?), or as a self abenagtion of life, itself. Life cannot be enjoyed for its own sake. It must have a purpose (or function of the church?)! Liberty is not the message of traditional Christian faith, as it is always about God's will and not the individual's will.
Happiness. As Christian faith is about "loving God first", Christians do not affirm seeking "happiness". Happiness is based on circumstances in the material realm, which undermines "faith" in a trascendent reality. The transcendent reality is more important than the real world and life of the individual. Acesticism has been understood as a form of "sanctification" by some, just as it did in Judiasm and other religious faiths. Ascesticism does not affirm the life of the material, but the spiritual. In fact, asceticism denies affirming life's "here and now".
Christian faith has been defined by tradition's doctrine, by Scriptural texts, and by Church authorities, but has never affirmed tolerance of individual difference. This is the reason why so many churches split over how they understand their faith and its commitments. This has happened historically and is still occurring. Churches are defined by their definitions of right (and wrong), while individuals seek after what is true for themselves. What are the values that are most important to uphold and seek?And Why? These are important questions for the young adult to evaluate in coming to terms with what his own passion is and what he wants to commit to.
Progressive Christians are more open to change than the traditional ones. The dilemma for progressives is where to draw the line to maintain a "group identity", where the traditional Christian has all of the elements of his faith defined for him. Progressive Christians base their faith on reason. Traditional Christians base their authority outside of themselves. The question for the Church is whether the Church should see itself as an institution established by God that is not to be questioned, or as a social structure that needs to challenge itself often in its understanding of faith, reason and what that means....otherwise, Christians will be discriminating and not even recognize it, until much too late....
Life. Life is a human universal. Without life, we can not pursue any other opportunity. Life is experienced by the individual. Therefore, individual life must be protected, first and foremost. But, how is life defined? Life can be defined by it's physicality, as well as it's "abundance". If life is limited to the physical aspects, without supporting its abundance, life seems futile. The futility of life is found when man ceases to have "rewards" for his labor, or hope for his goals. While life's rewards and goals are aspects of a flourishing life, life cannot be realized apart from proper government that recognizes the individual's right to pursue his own ends.
Liberty. Government, such as we have in America, encourages engagement and recognizes everyone's right to pursue life's abundance as they deem fit, within the boundaries of law. This is how liberty is defined. But, traditional Christians do not support an individual's right to pursue his own ends, as Christians define life as a commitment to the "cause of the Kingdom of God" (how is the Kingdom defined?), or as a self abenagtion of life, itself. Life cannot be enjoyed for its own sake. It must have a purpose (or function of the church?)! Liberty is not the message of traditional Christian faith, as it is always about God's will and not the individual's will.
Happiness. As Christian faith is about "loving God first", Christians do not affirm seeking "happiness". Happiness is based on circumstances in the material realm, which undermines "faith" in a trascendent reality. The transcendent reality is more important than the real world and life of the individual. Acesticism has been understood as a form of "sanctification" by some, just as it did in Judiasm and other religious faiths. Ascesticism does not affirm the life of the material, but the spiritual. In fact, asceticism denies affirming life's "here and now".
Christian faith has been defined by tradition's doctrine, by Scriptural texts, and by Church authorities, but has never affirmed tolerance of individual difference. This is the reason why so many churches split over how they understand their faith and its commitments. This has happened historically and is still occurring. Churches are defined by their definitions of right (and wrong), while individuals seek after what is true for themselves. What are the values that are most important to uphold and seek?And Why? These are important questions for the young adult to evaluate in coming to terms with what his own passion is and what he wants to commit to.
Progressive Christians are more open to change than the traditional ones. The dilemma for progressives is where to draw the line to maintain a "group identity", where the traditional Christian has all of the elements of his faith defined for him. Progressive Christians base their faith on reason. Traditional Christians base their authority outside of themselves. The question for the Church is whether the Church should see itself as an institution established by God that is not to be questioned, or as a social structure that needs to challenge itself often in its understanding of faith, reason and what that means....otherwise, Christians will be discriminating and not even recognize it, until much too late....
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
An Applause for America
John McCain lost last night and he, in characteristic fashion, graciously applauded Obama's presidency. In like matter, I would like to applaud our form of government and the ideals that our government represents.
Many across the world have watched to see if how America's ideals would play out in our presidental decision. The American ideal of equality has won the day with the election of the first African American. And I am proud that this ideal has won. It seemed to me that many African Americans were emotionally touched by this outcome. One does not have to question why this may be. Slavery is not representative of the American conviction of individual freedom or equality and choice. African Americans have lived with the stigma of slavery and discrimination, whether self-imposed or not, and it has affected their self-perception.
Now, the world knows that we mean business when it comes to our ideals of freedom and justice for all, at least within our own borders. Let's see how Obama and his cabinet envision these ideals on a global scale.
Many across the world have watched to see if how America's ideals would play out in our presidental decision. The American ideal of equality has won the day with the election of the first African American. And I am proud that this ideal has won. It seemed to me that many African Americans were emotionally touched by this outcome. One does not have to question why this may be. Slavery is not representative of the American conviction of individual freedom or equality and choice. African Americans have lived with the stigma of slavery and discrimination, whether self-imposed or not, and it has affected their self-perception.
Now, the world knows that we mean business when it comes to our ideals of freedom and justice for all, at least within our own borders. Let's see how Obama and his cabinet envision these ideals on a global scale.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Friends, Foes and Fables
Today's "First Things" entry was about 'God on Trial". The usual questions about suffering, innocence, and a personal Almighty God. How men can bear anything as long as they believe that there is "purpose".
This article is really written to Christians, because it assumes that the person still believes that there is 1.)original sin 2.)the Jews were God's chosen people 3.)God has a purpose in suffering...he acts in history, if not in the "now", then in the future 4.) and that God spoke in/through texts. Such assumptions do not speak to the agnostic or atheistic rationalist, because it appeals to faith.
Suffering happens as a consequence of others choices that impinge upon our life as well as, just "life" itself. There are no reasons for some things. Friends do not bring suffering into their friend's life, but seek to bless and identify with it. Scripture says that Jesus calls us "no longer servants" but friends. Friends bear with you and are there for you in suffering. Friends do not seek to "test" you, as "First Things" claimed that God does. Friends remove obstacles in your way and help lift your burdens.
Foes, on the other hand, judge you as "a Jew", or other derogatory labels. While labels serve to help us understand where an individual "commits" or how an individual "understands", it should not be used to describe individuals, themselves. Individuals may identify with a group, but are much more than the group. Prejuidice is blindness to the commonality of humanity's "needs".
Fables, or myths, help groups to define themselves, or help the group to maintain certain values that are meaningful. These myths are not true in the historical sense, necessarily, but help give vision to a people. Myths can "grow up" around a historical figure, which is what transpired around the historical Jesus, Buddha, or the Pope or any other authority .
The ideals that America stands for: equality, liberty, justice for all people, are values that include every people group. We believe in the individual and the individual's right to choose his own way of life. American values "ideally" respect all people and their "way of life". American history has not realized the "all" in its history, but has grown in its embrace of all. But, the quandary lies in "traditional cultures", where the individual is not valued, but only the 'tradition". The individual only exists as the tradition defines him/her and conformity is mandated 'under law". These cultures are oppressive regimes under tribal 'elders" that terrorize anyone challenging its views. Not only religious or traditional cultures are challenging today, but political oppression is also a challenge to America.
We Americans have challenges today with those who would undertake to undermine our values of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and it is done in the name of God or in the name of the "common good". Americans are open and somewhat naive about the world and life, because of our freedom to puruse our own lives. This very "freedom" has bred ambivalence on the part of many Americans about the larger world. Even our major news networks inform us of our own "news", while for the most part, leaving us in ignorance as to the rest of the world. While these are drawbacks to our "maturity", our values have been ones that others have jealously desired by those who do not have our freedoms. Many have come to our shores to seek the freedoms, that we so often take for granted. Our immigration policy must allow those "others" the equality, liberty, and justice that we Americans enjoy all the time. While embracing others into our country, we should not negate the need to qualify citizens in regards to loyalty to our culture's values of tolerance. Tolerance cannot embrace the intolerant, whether in religious or political ideologies. If we do, we are doing so at the demise of our society at large.
This article is really written to Christians, because it assumes that the person still believes that there is 1.)original sin 2.)the Jews were God's chosen people 3.)God has a purpose in suffering...he acts in history, if not in the "now", then in the future 4.) and that God spoke in/through texts. Such assumptions do not speak to the agnostic or atheistic rationalist, because it appeals to faith.
Suffering happens as a consequence of others choices that impinge upon our life as well as, just "life" itself. There are no reasons for some things. Friends do not bring suffering into their friend's life, but seek to bless and identify with it. Scripture says that Jesus calls us "no longer servants" but friends. Friends bear with you and are there for you in suffering. Friends do not seek to "test" you, as "First Things" claimed that God does. Friends remove obstacles in your way and help lift your burdens.
Foes, on the other hand, judge you as "a Jew", or other derogatory labels. While labels serve to help us understand where an individual "commits" or how an individual "understands", it should not be used to describe individuals, themselves. Individuals may identify with a group, but are much more than the group. Prejuidice is blindness to the commonality of humanity's "needs".
Fables, or myths, help groups to define themselves, or help the group to maintain certain values that are meaningful. These myths are not true in the historical sense, necessarily, but help give vision to a people. Myths can "grow up" around a historical figure, which is what transpired around the historical Jesus, Buddha, or the Pope or any other authority .
The ideals that America stands for: equality, liberty, justice for all people, are values that include every people group. We believe in the individual and the individual's right to choose his own way of life. American values "ideally" respect all people and their "way of life". American history has not realized the "all" in its history, but has grown in its embrace of all. But, the quandary lies in "traditional cultures", where the individual is not valued, but only the 'tradition". The individual only exists as the tradition defines him/her and conformity is mandated 'under law". These cultures are oppressive regimes under tribal 'elders" that terrorize anyone challenging its views. Not only religious or traditional cultures are challenging today, but political oppression is also a challenge to America.
We Americans have challenges today with those who would undertake to undermine our values of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and it is done in the name of God or in the name of the "common good". Americans are open and somewhat naive about the world and life, because of our freedom to puruse our own lives. This very "freedom" has bred ambivalence on the part of many Americans about the larger world. Even our major news networks inform us of our own "news", while for the most part, leaving us in ignorance as to the rest of the world. While these are drawbacks to our "maturity", our values have been ones that others have jealously desired by those who do not have our freedoms. Many have come to our shores to seek the freedoms, that we so often take for granted. Our immigration policy must allow those "others" the equality, liberty, and justice that we Americans enjoy all the time. While embracing others into our country, we should not negate the need to qualify citizens in regards to loyalty to our culture's values of tolerance. Tolerance cannot embrace the intolerant, whether in religious or political ideologies. If we do, we are doing so at the demise of our society at large.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Huckabee's Tolerance of Atheists
I watched Huckabee last night interview Richard Dreyfuss. He was very cordial and respectful. He spoke about civil discourse. He practiced respecting those with whom he disagrees. I appreciate this as the differences in ideology could not be more stark in this election.
There is much that pokes fun at faith these days. And I really agree with many of the convictions of those who are atheists. Religion is dangerous, as we really do not know about God. We can only assume based on our culture's understanding. There is no supernatural revelation, nor is there any sacred/secular distinction. There are only variances of commitment based on what seems to bring about the most good. And the practical philosophy plays out in politics. This is where the game is played and won. One's commitment to a religious tradition is really irrelavant to how one thinks about what is best in a particular situation. One may justify one's posiiton based on a particular text or understanding of God, but reason is really the basis of a certain commitment.
So, convince me based not on God, but on why a certain position is best and why.
There is much that pokes fun at faith these days. And I really agree with many of the convictions of those who are atheists. Religion is dangerous, as we really do not know about God. We can only assume based on our culture's understanding. There is no supernatural revelation, nor is there any sacred/secular distinction. There are only variances of commitment based on what seems to bring about the most good. And the practical philosophy plays out in politics. This is where the game is played and won. One's commitment to a religious tradition is really irrelavant to how one thinks about what is best in a particular situation. One may justify one's posiiton based on a particular text or understanding of God, but reason is really the basis of a certain commitment.
So, convince me based not on God, but on why a certain position is best and why.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Education My Daughter Gave Me On YouTube!
This afternoon my oldest son, his girlfriend, and my daughter sat around our table discussing the political decisions that are facing us on Tuesday. The coversation came around to Obama and what he stood for. My daughter had happened upon two YouTube videos of Obama at campaign rallies and was relaying the information to us at the table. I could not believe my ears, so I asked her to inform me through my eyes!
She immediately got our computor and pulled up a YouTube video of Obama making fun of a heckler and cutting his question of by saying "Blah, Blah Blah...""You can vote for someone else", etc. This was on the heels of my learning last week about Obama dismissing some of the media travelling with his campaign, as they were pro-McCain!!! And this is America?
Obama wants a civilian military police. And he is portraying what our America may become under his "dictatorship"(especially, if the Democrats hold the reigns of power in Congress). He has investigated Joe the Plumber, one newswoman's husband, and some others. No doubt there are those that we don't (and won't) know about. This is quite disturbing that the Democrats who were outraged over Guantanomo Bay situation, are looking the other way when it comes to the abuse of power on the campaign trail. Are they so afraid of Obama's power that they fear speaking out? Do none of them care enough about our freedoms? Do none have the courage to go against their party when principle is of primary importance?
John McCain took the high road when he could have gotten out of prison, by denying some of his basic commitments to his country. But, he did not. Which candidate do we really think has the country's best interest at heart? Obama certainly wants change, but it is systemic change of our cultural values of freedom. We must not be so blind and focused on temporary promises that we forget the future of American ideals!
She immediately got our computor and pulled up a YouTube video of Obama making fun of a heckler and cutting his question of by saying "Blah, Blah Blah...""You can vote for someone else", etc. This was on the heels of my learning last week about Obama dismissing some of the media travelling with his campaign, as they were pro-McCain!!! And this is America?
Obama wants a civilian military police. And he is portraying what our America may become under his "dictatorship"(especially, if the Democrats hold the reigns of power in Congress). He has investigated Joe the Plumber, one newswoman's husband, and some others. No doubt there are those that we don't (and won't) know about. This is quite disturbing that the Democrats who were outraged over Guantanomo Bay situation, are looking the other way when it comes to the abuse of power on the campaign trail. Are they so afraid of Obama's power that they fear speaking out? Do none of them care enough about our freedoms? Do none have the courage to go against their party when principle is of primary importance?
John McCain took the high road when he could have gotten out of prison, by denying some of his basic commitments to his country. But, he did not. Which candidate do we really think has the country's best interest at heart? Obama certainly wants change, but it is systemic change of our cultural values of freedom. We must not be so blind and focused on temporary promises that we forget the future of American ideals!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
