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.   

Jesus, The Bible and Homsexuality--Explode the Myths, Heal the Church

The following is excerpt from an excellent review of the book listed in the post title. Dealing with the subject of homosexuality and the church, the author follows the status quo in some areas and challenges popular notions in others. One area that I found intriguing and potentially makes the book worth the read is where the author allegedly states that heterosexual marriage has more to fear from itself than the harm that homosexual unions can bring. I agree totally with this synopsis. I think I am going to read the book myself. This excerpt comes from a blog that I find extremely good entitled, The Beautiful Heresy- Christian Universalism.

The last chapter that I read addresses the idea of homosexuality and marriage. Professor Rogers shows statistically speaking that, while marriage is in trouble in the United States, it doesn't need defense from homosexual marriage which does not threaten heterosexual marriage at all. He also points out the hypocrisy of putting homosexuals in the bind of saying that all sex outside of the institution of marriage is sin while denying them the right to marry. We are assigning homosexuals to a life of celibacy, a life that the Bible clearly states is not for everyone and is an assignment from God.

I see more and more Christians who are willing to at least debate gay rights now. Both civil rights and how homosexuals should be treated in the church is up for discussion. A while ago Brian McClaren called for a five year time out to think about the topic. But, while I like the fact that he is not advocating continued discrimination, by doing nothing, we are condemning gay people to continue to suffer from this discrimination. We should never hesitate when it comes to seeking justice. Justice delayed is justice denied. The time is always now. Hopefully, books like this one will move some people off of the sidelines and into the arena to fight for justice.

http://www.thebeautifulheresy.com/2009/01/jesus-bible-and-homosexuality-explode.html

Do Muslims/Islam get a bad rap?

I subscribe to a number of Google Alerts which notifies me of religious news based on my predetermined parameters. I get alerts for news related to all the major religions, including articles related to Muslims and Islam. One thing that I've noticed ever since setting these alerts up is that the overwhelming majority of Muslim related news is negative. If I were to base my opinion solely upon what the media considers newsworthy regarding Islam, I would definitely have to say that it is not a peaceful religion.

Obviously, I do not agree with this opinion. There are allot of good Muslims, both in the US and abroad. Many of whom have gone to great lengths to challenge this erroneous popular notion. You can no more judge Muslims by the actions of Jihadist as you can Christianity by the actions of right-wing anti-establishment isolationist who stockpile guns and spout anti-government propaganda.

One has to wonder what role the media plays in this anti-Islamic campaign. History abounds with the countless atrocities of the Christian religion. Millions of innocent people killed, martyred because their ideas or lifestyle somehow differed from that which was sanctioned by the church of the time. While I am myself a Christian, I feel no need to gloss over this dark and troubling time in my faith's evolution. Fortunately for Christianity, there were no airwaves or Internet where news can literally travel all the way around the world in the blink of an eye.

As a person who respects much of the world's sacred literature, I appreciate and honor the Koran as a book of life and instruction. While it may have its less comely parts (as a figure of speech), so does the bible or any number of ancient text used by many of the world's religions. We acknowledge that many of the stories and teaching contained in these books were crafted in different times where things now unacceptable were common place, such as slavery and the subjugation of women, among other things. However, it certainly doesn't negate the timeless truths that many of these sacred writings convey, including both the Bible and the Koran.

So, the question remains, does the media stimulate this anti-Islamic fervor? I think so. Peaceful Muslims meeting in Mosque around the world, practicing their religion while being respectful of others is just not newsworthy. Educated and perceptive people, however, should not be swayed by this negative propaganda. We shouldn't be ignorant of the fact that there are people, regardless of their religion, who will espouse hate and subject the world to violence, using religion as their excuse. We should not use their ignorance, however, to reject a huge segment of the world's population whose faith and practice is not threatening at all.

Freedom for All

I recently stumbled across an excellent blog by the name of In My Lifetime. BK Hipsher, an Episcopal priest as well as a PhD candidate at Winchester University, UK, is the author. Back on November 17, she published a post entitled What if... I meant to get around to sharing this earlier but have been busy of late trying to get some things sorted out on my blog so my posting has been delayed a bit.

The post refers to the many demonstrations around the country against Proposition 8 in California and numerous other anti-GLBT initiatives that succeeded around the country this past election. Hipsher was amazed that so many people were moved to get out of their lazy chairs and demonstrate for justice, equality, and religious pluralism. Obviously, the issue at hand really hit the participants where they lived and thus blasted them out of their complacency and behooved them to become involved. According to the post, demonstrations took place in 300 major cities throughout the US .
.
It is so easy for us to become passionate about the things that directly affect us. Let someone assault our religious freedom, our freedom to of speech; watch the NRA pundits pour millions of dollars into lobbying against any thing they deemed a threat. We are so prone to act when it affects us. But, Hipsher asked the question, what if we would react with the same fervor against any incidence of injustice in our world? The examples are overwhelming; one such example she mentions is the fact that 43 million people in this country do not have health insurance and thus, limited to no access to quality health care.

The point here is that we should be consistent, willing to fight for those who consistently can not fight for themselves. The millions of children in this country who are considered to be food insecure. The marginalized, mentally ill, and those who have no voice. At the end of Hipsher's post she states that she hopes "that one day we grow up and realize that until all of us are free, none of us are free. Until all of us have access to civil rights, none of us do. Until all of us have health care, none of us do. Until there is justice for ALL, there is no justice." There is absolutely nothing I can add to that but a hearty AMEN!

Can people of different faiths coexist together intimately?

For many Christians there are two scriptures that serve to regulate relationships for them:

• Amos 3:3 "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"

• 2Cor 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
  

Regardless of whether or not the interpretation of these passages is correct or not, they are used as is to discourage the development of relationships with people who do not agree with or adhere to their particular religious perspective. It is considered to be unequally yoked to be friends or romantic partners with a non-Christian, regardless of whether or not that person is an adherent of another faith or not. This is an exclusive mentality that tends to invalidate any faith besides its own; to become relationally engaged with people unlike themselves is to break a fundamental rule.

Now, it would be a violation of the spirit of this blog to make light of this practice and the ideals behind it. There are many good conservative evangelical Christians that take this to heart and feel that it is a non-negotiable rule. And, in many ways, there are good reasons for it. All of us have heard the statement that there are two things you simply can not talk about in public or even family gatherings: politics and religion. How many uncomfortable settings have we endured and relationships strained because of conflict in these areas. Thus, it would appear that this prohibition, this need to agree so to speak, is warranted.

To be honest, I've felt this way for much of my life, no matter what religious persuasion I was operating from at the time. I have been an evangelical Christian, a Wiccan/pagan, an agnostic, etc, and today I am a left leaning liberal progressive Christian (now there is a label for you!). Throughout each season in my life, I naturally gravitated toward those people with whom I had the most in common. This is just human nature.

My question, however, is does it always have to be this way? Notwithstanding the scriptures mentioned above as well as the natural inclinations of our human nature, is there not something of value to gain from developing relationships with those who are vastly different from ourselves? Obviously these are rhetorical questions, but is my faith so secure and complete so as not to be affected by intimate relationships with people of different faiths? I would hope so.

If the ideals of religious pluralism and tolerance are to prevail in our day, we are going to have to be willing to live and let live. This means that we must acknowledge that each person is on their own spiritual journey; a work in progress, an evolution if you will. Regardless of of how their faith measures up to ours, their spiritual journey is equally as valid as our own. This is not a matter of right and wrong. It is a matter of freedom to follow the dictates of one's own heart. Each of us are free to develop our own ideas of of the divine and to formulate beliefs and opinions about how life is to be lived and how God is to be understood. It only becomes detrimental when we try to impose these ideas and understandings of God as the only legitimate way.

Tolerance is the key and we must learn to practice it in every sphere of our lives; in our families, marriages, and places of employment, etc. How rich our lives would be if we could share our faith with others and learn from them as well? The chasm between groups is man made and it can be bridged or removed altogether with some concerted effort. I happen to know this from personal experience.

This subject is more than abstract to me because my wife and I are very different in our religious beliefs. As I've stated before, I am more liberal than her in just about every area. Contrarily, she is more of an evangelical Christian and more conservative than I am. I would like to say that it has not been problematic but the fact is, it has. And, I would like to say that because I am the liberal one and inclined to represent myself as being more open minded, that she has had the greatest difficulty adjusting to our situation. But, unfortunately, I am not sure that is true. Ideological differences between people who are intimate can be a difficult hurdle to overcome.

One of the first things I had to do in coming to grips with our differences was to give her permission to not be like me. That may sound haughty; I mean, as if she needed my permission for anything. But, on my side, I had to give her the same latitude that I wanted myself. Shakespeare's famous quote in Hamlet is most applicable here: ”This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.” Just as I must have the freedom to live out my spiritual and religious convictions, so should she be given the same freedom to be true to her self.

Because of our love and commitment to one another, we have made allot of progress in this area of tolerance and giving the other the space to be who and what they are. Fact is, her faith and convictions have positively affected me in too many ways to share here. I am thankful for how she sees God and she has helped me to be more sober and circumspect in how I relate my current beliefs with those I held in the past. To use a common cliché', its so easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thankfully, I am learning that I don't always have to relinquish every thing in my effort to embrace new and fresh ideas.

Lastly, I am not sure that there is an appropriate way to end this article, so I am not going to try. What I hope is that we can continue this discussion in our comment section. This should be an ongoing conversation among people of faith. Some questions for discussion: can two people get married and stay married with opposing belief systems? How can we introduce issues of faith in our relationships in a way that is non-threatening and productive? How do we reconcile our right to formulate beliefs and opinions about how life is to be lived and how God is to be understood with the civility of respecting other people's right to do the same thing? With a Mosque on one end of a street and a Synagogue on the other, how do we coexist together, pooling our resources to make positive changes for the community at large? These are all pertinent issues facing our world today.

Meet me in the comment section to continue this discussion.