One Priest, Two Faiths, and Lots of Questions - News

One Priest, Two Faiths, and Lots of Questions - News

Pluralistic ideology can often be abstract and rhetorical. The above article on belief.net's news section highlights two Episcopal priest: one who is both an Episcopal priest as well as a follower of Islam; the other is an Episcopal priest recently voted in as the Bishop of the Upper Michigan Diocese who also practices Zen Meditation and has received lay ordination from a Buddhist community. The controversy over these two priest is stirring up much debate and is threatening to create a 21st century version of the Syncretistic Controversy.

Among those of us who have a positive view on religious pluralism, I wonder how many would feel comfortable with multiple faith confessions? It is true that many of the beliefs of the world's major religions contradict one another. How can these differences be reconciled? One of the priest involved states that Christianity and Islam (her additional faith interest) inform and compliment one another more than they collide with each other.

I must admit that the idea gives me some pause, not really idealistically, but more of a practical nature. The demands and conflicting ideas of, say, Islam and Christianity, would be very difficult to reconcile in my opinion. To the contrary, to have an eclectic faith where one can be a part of a specific faith community, one that best suits or fits their spirituality, but also is free to take from any religion to inform and enhance their understanding of God and responsibility to the world, seems to be a more manageable propposition. For instance, I am an Episcopalian and am most comfortable in a Christo-centric, bible related practice of faith. However, I allow myself the freedom to search for God in the sacred scriptures of many religions: buddhist, Islamic, earth based spirituality, etc, they all have something of value to offer the soul that is searching. Some fit with my spiritual disposition and where I am at the moment better than others. Some day down the road I may be able to find value in things that can not recieve from today.

What is your opinion on this matter? Is it really possible for a person to be a part of two completely different faiths and be equally as faithful to both? This is a very interesting question and one that is likely to become more relevant as our postmodern age proceeds. Leave a comment through which you can follow me to Disqus and we can discuss this topic further. Be sure to vote on the poll related to this post that is included in the right side bar. Thank you for your participation!

For Those Who are Pained by My Changes

For Those Who are Pained by My Changes

The above link is one that I found in an article entitled "Losing Your Religion? How to Talk to your Kids", written by Valerie Tarico in the Living section of the Huffington Post. Tarico is best known for her book, The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth and the founder of WisdomCommons.org. As the title of the article suggest, Tarico is addressing the issue of how to approach your children when your quest of faith has led you in an opposite direction than what they are used to seeing. This is no doubt a very serious issue and one that is oftentimes neglected at the demise of children's faith.

Children need to understand that faith is a journey and that in this journey things often change; we often change! This change does not negate the reality of the faith that we once held, it informs that faith and it is important that children understand this. There have been many cases where children wake up one day to find that things have changed drastically in the spirituality of their parents. Perhaps, this brings about a move from one church to another, or, even a change in the family's church attendance altogether. Where the family used to attend church on a regular basis, now the family only attends sporadically, if at all. This is not always a bad thing, it may just be a phase in a person's spiritual journey where relationship or solitude, etc, is more important at the time. However, children may see this and get confused and this confusion can breed disillusionment and an eventual migration away from all religious faith.

In the article, Tarico links to a piece she wrote and that is what is linked above and referenced in the title of this post. It goes beyond the need to speak to children about this and extends to family relationships and those persons in one's life that can be affected by change in a person's spiritual disposition. Tarico is writing for the benefit of loved one's who are worried about her change in faith and she is telling them what she sees as important about her change and what she wants them to know. Its a great piece and one that I wish I had stumbled upon a long time ago. She really does a great job of explaining the process she is going through; this process is indicative of what many of us, whose faith has been reshaped and redefined and who are constantly in a state of flux regarding matters of faith and spirituality, go through.

At the end of this post written to Tarico's loved ones, she says the following:

For a long time, I have known that the answers I had were not quite right. But I didn't really know how to explain this whole process or how to articulate a better set of answers, so mostly what I talked about was the flaws in the old way of thinking.

This really explains a process that I know I've been through and actions of mine that I sincerely regret. It is just so easy for us to think that since we are unhappy with or questioning what we believe then surely everyone must be feeling this way, or if they are not, they should be. The fact is, however, that some people never question their faith; they are happy and content in what they believe and it would not be healthy for them to have their faith challenged. I think what happens is that we become so invested in 'faith as a journey' and we want everyone to respect our navigational decisions in this journey, but we are not so free in giving others space to plot their own course in matters of faith.

We are all at different places in our spiritual quest and we should learn how to respect that my revelation may be a stumbling block to another. Paul, in the 14th chapter of Romans, speaks to this very issue when dealing with eating meat that was sacrificed to idols and respecting certain holy days. Paul acknowledges that our feelings of freedom and such are not shared by everyone around us. Damage can be unnecessarily done to another's faith if ideas and concepts are pushed upon them that they are not ready to receive. They may never receive it, and that should be okay with us. I can look back and see where I was totally irresponsible with my religious ideas and intentionally challenged others who should not have been challenged. I mean, my faith changes often; it is okay with me if I do not have all the answers and if I take a position that is totally opposite of one that I took in the past. That's me. But, others find security in the answers they have and when one of those answers are attacked or challenged, it becomes personal. I should understand this, especially since I have been there.

Whether it is our children or family members or friends, all should be given the respect to grow in their faith and understanding in a manner that is appropriate for each individually. Variety is a good thing; no one has to be just like me, or just like you. This is a great lesson to be reminded of and Tarico does a wonderful job of bringing our attention to this important reality.

On Faith Panelists Blog: Religion is Being Redefined - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

On Faith Panelists Blog: Religion is Being Redefined - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

Kenneth E. Bowers, a Baha'i Faith represenatitve and an On Faith panelist wrote the blog post linked above on Tuesday the 17th. I did not notice it until today but I am glad I did. While its a short peice, I like allot  of what Bowers has to say. Also, I really like a represenative of a somewhat obscure but popular religion being featured as well. Beyond a few powerful yet controversial statements that Bowers makes, statements that we will get to in a moment, reading this post gave me an intellectual itch to scatch, so to speak. Not, knowing much about the Baha'i faith, I spent a little time familarizing myself with it and found a religion with a rich heritage and a great way of looking at the world. 

Rising up within nineteenth century Persia, the religion has a modern flavor. Monotheistic in essence, it accepts the world's mutilplicity of religious faiths as reflections of  a single divine force or power that uses these seperate faith renditions as a chorus of a single composer. Such as the symphony is made up of its various parts and musical instruments, it all works together to present a unified musical ensemble. So, the world's main religions reveal a single truth about a unified and singular divine; at least, that is what I understood the Baha'i religion to say and I must admit that the approach is very appealing and refreshing.  

Equally refreshing is that many of the values and social principles of the Baha'i faith call for justice and a complete elimination of predijuce and inequality. Humanity is called upon to live in peace and unity, both religiously and politically. World peace is a prominent doctrine. The equality of man and woman as well as a harmony between religion and science are both fundamental beliefs as well. 

Given the time this faith was born it is amazingly progressive. While its monotheistic emphasis or its theism in gneral may turn many people off, its unlying principles are very in tune with post modern notions of justice. I see in it a wonderful opportunity and platform for religions to meet on equal footing and engage in respectful dialog. It is no wonder to me that millions follow this faith worldwide and that many see it as the answer to religious plurality. 

As promised, there are several statements in the above mentioned blog post that I would like to briefly comment on. First, Bowers sees globalization and the free and exhaustive exchange of information in today's world as an antidote to religious fanaticism and dogmatism. He states the following:

"It is natural that, exposed to an array of choices, many would either change religious identity, opt not to commit to any one religion, or even abandon religion altogether." 

I wish that he would have elaborated on his source here for these powerful projections. I suspect that there is some truth to his proposals, although I certainly would not take his word for it. Two of his statements here assume prior religious understanding/belief: changing religious identity and abandoning religion altogether. I'm not so sure that his certainity here does not overlook the power of one's native faith or religious system. Opening one's mind to other religious ideas and systems will no doubt challenge a person, but it often has the opposite effect in that it can threaten one's ideas and thus invoke a departure from religious sampling. Additionally, doing research on the religious faith and ideas of another group of people or culture does not always mean that a person is searching for an alternative religious system or theory. So, while I like his statement and am inclined toward it, I am not convinced that the current information age is going to overcome fundamentalism or that the existence of religious pluralism will necessarily render the "my faith is right" mentality obsolete. I think this is more wishful  thinking than rational thought. 

Here is another statement that Bower makes that I think demands attention:

"...many have not so much abandoned faith as the narrow definitions of faith that often come with membership in a specific religious tradition. They see something universal and common to all religious expereince, and are therefore ready to accept such divesity as a necessary, even desirable, aspect of life. They appreciate faith and spirituality, but choose not to confine themselves to one particular choice."

Once again, I like this statement. But, one has to wonder if Bower is looking at the world through the eyes of a religious historian or an echatalogical prophet of his own doctrinal beliefs. Religion is being redefined here but is it not being redefined toward that which is consistent with the beliefs and eschatology of Bower's Baha'i religious belief system? Certainly, this religious mentality is consistent and conducive with Bower's beliefs but I am not sure that the world's religious population is becoming more tolerant and on a path to merge ecumenically anytime soon. 

There are some merits to Bower's thoughts here so I am not trying to dimisss him altogether. Obviously, I am a proponent to religious pluralism or this site would not exist. But, I am not sure that I am as optimistic that the world is on the verge of getting along in spite of religious differences or that the Baha'i  faith, although fascinating in itself, is the absolute platform for unity that the world is going to simply adhere too. 

Perhaps, the day will come that the world operates under a single dictum or religious mandate. Even Christianity has such a persuasion in its eschatalogical view of the world. If religious harmony is to ever be achieved, it will definitely take some unifying force or require some platform or system of belief to triumph emphatically to the absolute exclusion of all others. Perhaps, and hopefully, a syncretistic logic similar to that porposed by Bower will eventually be the answer. It's a lofty ideal and would definitely stop all the killing and religious wars and bigotry that even today, in this post modern age, characterize such a large portion of religious faith. I nodd my head with Bowers in hope that he and his ideas are at least headed in the right direction.   

Losing My Religion' by William Lobdell - Los Angeles Times

Losing My Religion' by William Lobdell - Los Angeles Times

Several news sources picked up this story yesterday, promoting Mr. Lobdell's new book about his faith journey and how it related to his profession. It always pains me to hear or read of something as tragic as a person losing faith. As a reporter for the LA Times, covering religion in the LA area and abroad, this reporter was disenchanted by what he saw and it lead him away from his one time enthusiastic belief in God. While the numerous articles did not go into much detail about the events that he witnessed that led him to his current position, one can easily imagine that they were not in the least bit flattering to Christianity or to religion in general.

While it always disappoints me to hear or read of such things, I can not do so without thinking about the religious climate that Jesus himself was born into. Much of his recorded ministry in the gospels is confrontational; confrontation with the religious elites of his day. In fact, historically, Jesus was killed by these Jewish elites because of his ongoing and incessant criticism of their misdeeds and self-righteous conduct. Reference was made in the above article about how Mr. Lobdell was disgusted by seeing Bishops and such getting out of limosuines and having their rings kissed while thier constituency suffered tremendous injustices, often perpetrated by the very people these Bishops were known to protect. Similarly, the gospel story tells of leaders who wanted the best seats, brought undue attention to their giving, and loaded their subjects down with religious burdens that they themselves were unwilling to bear.

I look forward to reading Lobdell's book, but I do hope that he will one day rediscover faith. Fortunately, for me, I learned a long time ago that my faith, if it was to survive, could not rest in others and its validity had to exist solely upon what it meant for me and what it did within me as a person. People will fail; the visible respresentations of all the world's major religions are not always perfect examples of the principles they are supposed to represent. Personal faith, however, looks beyond this and is able to gain value even where there is failure and compromise. My prayers are with Mr Lobdell and the many thousands of disillusioned people who legitimately can relate to him.

Yale Daily News - Demystifying the psychology of religion

Yale Daily News - Demystifying the psychology of religion

"What I'm interested in is the other story — what all religions have in common," he said. "These universals of religion come from aspects of peoples' brains that everybody shared and that emerged early in development."

From documenting our propensity to believe in teleological (purpose-based) explanations for natural phenomena to the widely held belief that humans possess a soul, a myriad of psychological studies — conducted both here at Yale and at peer universities — now suggest that our brains may be hard-wired to believe in religion.

"The universal themes of religion are not learned," Bloom said. "They emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems."

There has long been a scholastic preoccupation with the demythologizing of religion. Modernity sought for a quantitative method, a measurable cause to the irreducible religious compulsion within man across all cultural, ethnic, geographical, and a host of other boundaries. One refreshing thing about Paul Bloom's approach to answer the why question is that he begins with the universal nature of religious phenomenon as a given rather than something needing to be proved. It is this fact that seems to propel Bloom's inquiry into a psychology of religion.

In this article there is an admission that religious impulses are a part of man's unique constitution; a primordial element to his being. The argument, however, emerges when we see these impulses as merely physical or biological in origin. That is, our minds evolved with these inclinations due to environmental stimulants that were consistent across the board. This is not the first time I have heard of the idea that man's propensity to believe in teleological answers is hardwired into our brains; a biological product developed as a result of our natural evolution in response to the world wherein we developed. While this certainly stands in line with an approach that denies anything greater than the observable world, at least as it relates to any ontological ideal, for those who hold belief in something outside the mundane, however, the argument is lacking.

Many of the answers proffered by Bloom, Kellerman, and others, do not negate belief in a divine. It really is a matter of perspective, as well as the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Did our brains develop with these capabilities and inclinations simply in response to a concrete world that man could not explain, or did these impulses develop to enable the creature to perceive and interact with that which lies outside the quotidian facets of our lives? It really depends upon which presupposition one begins with. If your inclined to believe in a creator/god etc, then you are more likely to begin with the idea that God came first and man was created and evolved with the characteristics necessary to perceive God and relate to him. The physical processes that can be measured and cataloged are simply the organs through this relationship is possible. It certainly does not negate the question of God in any way; that is, unless you want it too. Conversely, you can begin with the idea that God exist only within the intellect of man and this existence is nothing more than the mechanistic features of our brain's development. This is the divide that has long stood between those who believe and those who do not.

The psychology of religion is a very interesting field with so much potential for discovery--discovery and exploration into the wonder of our physical being. Perhaps we can better understand how we think and how our minds are developed to interact with an unseen world. While Bloom's work is fascinating, given its starting presupposition, it is of limited value to religious inquiry. However, there are others, most notably the father of the psychology of religion himself, William James. His book The Varities of Religious Experience is still a classic in this field and it is as relevant today as its was in the day the lectures were delivered.

What do you think? Make a comment and join me at disqus to continue this fascinating discussion!

Prayer doesn't belong in schools - NJVoices: Star-Ledger Editorial Page

Prayer doesn't belong in schools - NJVoices: Star-Ledger Editorial Page:

Prayer doesn't belong in schools

The above story highlights a controversy that has raged my entire life as well as my entire school career. Prayer in public schools was a topic that was frequently brought up in church when I was a child and it definitely was a much stronger political hot button than what it is today. Stories such as the one above serve to remind me that the controversy has not went way.

The idea that removing school sanctioned prayer from the public schools would ultimately lead to a godless secular society is a common argument whenever this topic arises. For much of my life, I accepted it as true. However, as I have become more aware of the religious pluralism in America, I have also had to rethink my position on this issue.

Let me make it clear that I think religious prayer is important irrespective of the venue in which it is practiced. Most religions have some form of prayer as a part of its practices. This prayer should not be inhibited or censored by the government or state in any way. Furthermore, one form or ritual of prayer should not be held in higher regard than another. Students across our nation should be free to practice whatever form of prayer they feel compelled to engage in, or be free from doing so should they not want to participate. If freedom is genuine, then it must extend to all person's the right to practice whatever religion they choose and be free to not engage in religious practices should they so choose.

Allot has changed in this country since I was a child. In my elementary school, I would venture to say that the majority of students came from Christian homes where prayer was a regular part of their lives. Today, however, in many places across our country, this can not be said. While the majority may still have Christian proclivities, there is a growing and significant minority within many of our communities where this simply is not the case. Children from Buddhist homes, Muslim or Hindu homes, and a myriad of other religious traditions are represented in almost every school system in our nation. Is it fair to subject these students to school sanctioned prayer that is Christian in nature and thereby exclude the prayer practices of others? How can school officials, teachers, ect, engage in such without adding a seal of approval and acceptance upon one form of prayer and by virtue of exclusion, denounce another? Would these same leaders be open to a Muslim prayer or a Buddhist meditation prior to a game or some school function? I highly doubt it.

The religious freedoms of this country mean nothing if they do not extend to and protect the least of all religions among us. As we become more and more of a religious melting pot, as the religious face of America reflects the variety in the religious practices of everyone as a whole, we must become more conscientious and careful in how we practice our freedoms so as not to inhibit or violate the rights of others. Additionally, respecting the rights of others should never be misinterpeted as compromise, at least, not in a negative sense. Cooperation builds community and being sensitive to the religious rights of everyone in a given community extends the value of relious practices rather than purely secularizing a community.

No doubt this discussion will rage on. What do you think? Do you see the regulation of prayer at public events and in public institutions a means of secularizing our society? How do we reconcile the fact that our Congress opens with prayer and yet our school days can not begin with it? What changes does our society need to make in order to show respect and give different religions their respective rights to practice as well as freedom from discrimination? Finally, is the charge of secularization a particulary bad one? Join me at Disqus to discuss these issues as well as others.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Vatican hosts Darwin conference

BBC NEWS | Europe | Vatican hosts Darwin conference

I heard about this recently on NPR. Reading the press release, I found it interesting that the Catholic church never condemned Darwin or his theories. There are scholars from all over the world taking part in this discussion; a discussion that I think is well overdue and may serve to bring science and faith a few steps closer. These two entities are often at odds but do not necessarily have to be. Science should inform our faith not destroy it.

Here are a few related articles worth reading:

Cardinal says atheist's theories "absurd"

Science cannot disprove faith, cardinal argues

Cardinal says Dawkins' theories 'absurd'

SOF with Krista Tippett: Interview with Janna Levy

American Public Media's, Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett, produced a show last week entitled Mathematics, Truth, and Purpose. In this show, Tippett interviewed Janna Levin, a theoretical physicist and assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Barnard College in New York City. In addition to her academic career, Levin is also a novelist. The interview concentrates on Levin's most recent book entitled: A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines. Here is an excerpt from the show's transcript that explains the subject of Levin's book:

Her 2006 novel, A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines, explores great existential questions by probing the lives and ideas of two pivotal 20th-century mathematicians, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing. Turing is known as the father of modern computing, and his insights were made possible in part by Gödel's discoveries. In 1931, Gödel shook the worlds of mathematics, philosophy, and logic with his incompleteness theorems. He showed that some mathematical truths can never be proven or, as he says in Janna Levin's novel, that mathematics is perfect, but it is not complete.

To see some truths, you must stand outside and look in. This notion also held deeply unsettling human implications. It posited hard limits to what any of us can ever logically, definitively know. Janna Levin's novel imaginatively evokes the force of this idea in the classrooms and coffeehouses of Gödel and Turing's day, and in her own life as a 21st-century urban scientist. When we spoke in 2007, she told me she began her undergraduate studies with little active interest in science, convinced instead that philosophy was asking all the big questions.

If you missed this edition of SOF, then I highly recommend you go to their website and download either the podcast or the unedited version of the broadcast. It deals with unsettling but pertinent questions such as truth and the essence of free will. There are simply some things that lie outside of the observable region of empirical science. Levin's novel explores this idea, its implications, and how these questions were lived out in the lives and thinking of two great scientist whose lives are chronicled in the novel.