hello again

 

There is either quite a lot to say or not much at all.

This blog was much more active between 2005 and 2014. I was going to start writing more in again in 2016, then midway through the year I started a new job that took up much of my time and the political and religious environment started becoming much darker. When I logged on to write, criticism and frustration emerged.

There has been much to criticize the past four years, but I didn't want to be bitter or give an impression of bitterness to others. I also found myself just being very, very tired in many ways - physically, mentally, emotionally, socially. And, to be honest, I wasn't sure what to write beyond pointing out the hypocrisy and harm of those who substitute idolatry for faith.

When I became tinythinker many years ago, I was coming from a somewhat American fundamentalist Christian background. I had already left all of that behind and was still near the beginning of my graduate school days, studying evolutionary theory, cultures from the past and present around the world, and so much more. I started using the name for message boards back then, where I encountered some interesting Buddhists on forms otherwise full of Christian and atheists going at it. Sometimes with respect or some kind of boundaries, and sometimes not. So even before I brought my net handle to this blog, I had developed a curiosity in things like Unitarian Universalism, Buddhism, and even mystical Christianity.

I continued exploring such things to varying degrees between 2005 and 2014, as evidenced by the content from that period. But it wasn't just those thing in of themselves, though that was also intriguing, but also what they might mean for questions people tend to wrestle with and the answers that they fight over. Still, for me much of it was also self-image and construction, solving intellectual puzzles, and just finding out about different views that seemed so interesting.

Around 2010, having gotten into readings the preceding couple of years on contemplative and mystical Christianity, and with no Buddhist groups around, I tried attending a nearby church for a while. It was interesting, and I participated pretty well, but after a couple of years my curiosity and interest expired. So my attendance and participation drifted off. Still, I had been able to go beyond a lot of what I had previously experienced and known in my youth, through books and actual live services.

Which left a question.

What then?

Who the hell needs Jesus?

[Pixabay]

No really, that wasn't just an eye-catcher title to get you to scan further down. It's a genuine question.

Having run across something online earlier, I spontaneously thought of Christian evangelism and how the approach a Christian uses in sharing their "good news" sums up what they think of God and their faith.

That took half a second, so then in the other half the idea popped into my head of comparing approaches to evangelism in a society that is filled with so many people who are tired of the implications of over-used methods for proselytizing and the responses those methods can elicit. A few seconds into this line of thinking I came up with an idea that I've never heard expressed before.

Now maybe this idea was common in the first decades of the Christian faith, or maybe some theologian wrote such an idea down in a book I haven't read, so I can't claim it is one hundred percent original. I'll work out how I got to the idea and what it could mean for the image of Christianity below, but here it is:

Not everyone is called to be a Christian and that doesn't mean that they are going to hell or that they will face some kind of annihilation after their physical death.

Before I write anything else, understand that I am not writing this out of concern over whether anyone is or isn't a Christian or whether anyone becomes one. I am not promoting Christianity or validating any of its claims by discussing its basic concepts and ideas. Also, the reason I tossed in the "no hell/annihilation" part is because Christians are usually all about what happens after physical death even if they don't emphasize it. If I just said "not all are called to be Christians" people might think I had simply re-discovered generic predestination theology.

So if that is enough for you to chew on, go ahead. But if you are considering a response such as a share or comment, read a little further for additional context and clarification.

Where is God? Christians tired of being "misrepresented" need to work harder to show what they believe

[Pixabay]

Where you locate God affects how you relate to social justice. One location allows you to keep your religion separate from social change and political discourse, the other insists these cannot be viewed separately.

If you have or choose to read previous essays and speculations published here, you will come to recognize that my views on religion and spirituality are nuanced and fluid. For example, I find the declaring belief or lack of belief in God to be an impediment rather than a useful clarification (at least for myself). And while I rarely use the word much in my personal life, I often use "God" when writing about religion and spirituality as a shorthand for the deeper, grander mysteries of life and existence that transcend a human capacity for (full) comprehension or control.

I eschew adjectives such as "personal" and "impersonal" when it comes to discussions of divinity, with the use of the word "God" revealing an orientation toward understanding and experiencing existence. Neither strictly as an ideal nor as a specific object, but a larger unity underlying and pervading all we are, all we know, all we can be. Again, at least when I'm writing about this stuff or pushed to ask what kind of God might make sense to me. There isn't much need to worry about such depictions or definitions of God for my daily living. In practical terms I tend to leave "God" unfettered by words and overly specific expectations.

So if you're trying to figure out which category my views belong in when figuring out what angle I'm coming from in relation to the topic at hand, it's one of those really open approaches that drives some people with more fixed notions of what God must (not) or can(not) be to distraction. Yet I bring this up for more than honest disclosure about my own take on the idea of something like the concept of God. Because how one thinks about God shapes how one thinks about the value and purpose of formal religion in state-level societies as well as the larger global community.

If I had some need to worry about it, I suppose it would make sense that "God" (used here to represent the central concern or focus of religious notions of spiritual depth and personal transcendence) would be omnipresent yet not limited to any particular place or time. One of those weird sounding ideas theologians and philosophers talk about, this is sometimes rendered as being immanent (it's here with us) and transcendent (it's far beyond us) at the same time. There are ways of discussing how this works, including a kind of split-level monism in which immanence and transcendence reflect differences in perception and thus represent different modes of awareness, but we aren't getting into anything so heavy here. Not today.

But why does it matter where God is "located"? And what does it have to do with how those who identify as Christian behave and how they are perceived?

Evangelical fundamentalists are guilty of the sin of homosexuality

[Pixabay]

Even as they rail against the so-called gay agenda and wring their hands over what they perceive to be the legitimization of immorality, homosexuality remains a source of sin of which for which many who identify as Christians are guilty and for which they have yet to repent. But the gay community and its allies may yet set them free.

I say this for good reason, but there are some reasons that I do not claim. I don't claim to speak for anyone other than myself. Nor do I have any desire to pass judgment over any particular person or set myself up an official arbiter of religious righteousness or holiness, whether for Christianity or any other tradition.

But I do choose to emply the language some Christians use in passing judgment and condemning others for their sexual orientation (and we can expand that to their hangups over gender identity as well) in describing some observations about their perspective and behavior that I find objectionable.

A few words on sin

I find it interesting that sin and salvation can be understood in terms of spaciousness. The Jewish conception of salvation has a direct connection to the imagery of spaciousness, of being in a broad and fruitful place. This imagery can be taken in many ways, including phenomenologically, literally, metaphorically, imaginally, practically, and so on. Similarly, sin is connected to being confined, of being in a pit, or bound in chains, or in a desolate place.

As an offshoot of one of the first century sects of Judaism, Christianity has appropriated much of the imagery of its cultural forebears, at times keeping its original sense and at times modifying it. Dante Alighieri used this same imagery of constriction, for example, for depicting Hell as a place that gradually becomes narrower and more sparsely populated until it reaches Satan stuck in a small, dark, isolated space at the bottom.

Taking in this imagery, it suggests that the more deeply one becomes lost in such limiting and stale space, the more one descends into a barren, joyless, and fruitless existence. Shallow diversions and intense emotional distractions may temporarily seem to liven up this space, but their effects wear off more quickly after each use. A sense of hollowness and a deep malaise lurks when the noise stops. When silence is heard once more in the heart and mind.

The more time one spends in such a space, the more it changes a person. While the effects may not be perfectly consistent or universal, they involve a deep insecurity and sense of being unfulfilled. How these effects are expressed also varies. Some respond to this by denial, oddly enough by trying to fill their lives with noise that gives at least the appearance if not the sensation of being confident and successful. This becomes transmuted into arrogance and greed.

Other coveted virtues yield similar results, with condescension and cheapness masquerading as charity, manipulation, coercion, and gossip as concern, and so on. Unable to experience or express the genuine article, the counterfeits are tainted or corrupted. This perversion isn't necessarily intentional, and may in fact be the result of better intentions. Outwardly things may appear pleasant if not a little artificial or overdone.

Based on my own experiences and the reported experiences of others, this kind of sugar coated hypocrisy has become a stereotype of the evangelical fundamentalist Christian. They are by no means exclusive in having members that fit this mold. It does seem to be related, though, to seeking the kind of noise that covers the unease and gives the desired appearance and sense of self. A kind of noise that betrays a sense of not knowing or being comfortable with what it is they claim to possess.

This noise is manifest as an externalizing desire that transforms that hidden need to possess, to control, what they claim to already have by turning it into concrete expressions. Expressions based on loose perceptions of something they understand only in words and gestures. Thus "Jesus", "Christ", "The Cross", "God", "Salvation", "Heaven", and others are sold as books, music, decorations, and knick-knacks in circular, self-referential theology and diluted liturgy.

Some may end up resembling this stereotype based on imitation and inherited cultural patterns, so the underlying dynamics described aren't meant to reflect everyone who in someway resemble this stereotype. Nor is this stereotype the only outcome of those who find themselves in such a stifling, suffocating space. Rather it seems to be an outcome for those who are trying to convince themselves and others that they really do have the "fruits of the Spirit" (love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) when they lack sufficient inner spaciousness, springs, and light to bear them to the degree that they wish to present.

For those who are unfamiliar with or who have an aversion to religious language, as well as for those who recognize it but want to see how it works into the observation I started with, allow me to briefly unpack that imagery a little as I show why this relates to fundamentalist attitudes toward issues such as sexuality and gender identification.

The star fish will always be with you.

[Pixabay]

The title might throw you off, but the topic is about charity, compassion, and religious outreach.

OK, so here's how we get from A to Z.

I was thinking recently about how some religious organizations and groups plan and organize their efforts to connect or engage with the community. The fact is that I tend to be either uninterested or skeptical about such efforts, so I wondered why that should be so and what advice I would offer. Not that my opinion should carry more weight than anyone else's, but to see if I could come up with something other than a complaint.

To be clear, I wasn't thinking of any particular effort, like a bake sale or raffle, just the general idea. And one of the things that occurred to me is the way that people sometimes have a tendency to treat other people as objects to validate their view of the world or as means to an end. In short then, interaction in such situations isn't about the individual as a person, a whole person, but some value attached to that person from the perspective of another party.

To stick with the religious example, from an institutional point of view, it may seem desirable to have more members. There are many reasons for this, but that desire there and we know it. From the perspective of validating one's worldview, there may also be a desire for people to join or convert to your religion or a specific form of that religion. These things may be rationalized as being "good for" the individuals converting and becoming members, yet the tell is in how people are being treated.

For example, how concerned is the institution or organization interested in the overall well-being of the individual versus their loyalty or commitment of the individual to the institution and its rules and requirements? How much pressure is there to conform to the institution's view of the world and its emphasis on how to live regardless of the effect this has on the individual's mental or emotional heath Or social development and fulfillment. Regardless of the individual's doubts, objections, or concerns?

This is a more extreme example, but subtler forms also exist for many institutions, social movements, and self-conscious social categories. My thoughts lead me to consider what effect these subtler forms of objectification/reduction of individuals have and what a different approach might look like.

This caused my thinking to take a bit of a "spiritual" turn.

Why Western Christians Need "No God"

[Pixabay]

What do you think of when someone mentioned the God of the Bible?

A fickle sky deity worshiped by a collection of allied city states from Bronze age Palestine that merged to become the ancient nation of Israel? Perhaps an image of an old white haired sovereign on a celestial throne?

Perhaps you think instead of socially conservative religious leaders and their political allies and the things they say in the name of God. Or various injustices of history committed in the name of God.

If you do think of such things, you are far from alone. But like my unsolicited advice to Western convert Buddhists (1), one can ask what may be obscured by such reactions.

This kind of reaction is something many Christians seem to be at a loss over. Here is one take on that loss.

All human knowledge and experience is mediated through and embedded within symbols and analogies, especially in the shape of metaphors. Knowledge and experience is also mediated by and has embedded within it moral (how things are/how things ought to be) and emotional content. This is all woven together into narratives or stories at the level of individuals, communities, and societies.

We are more likely to trust someone whose narrative has a structure and interpretation lines up with our own in key ways, or with whom we have more intimate social and emotional connections. Its reciprocal. If I trust you, I trust your worldview. If I trust your worldview, I trust you.

Religion offers, among others things, a communal response to the spiritual impulse (seeking connection and purpose through integration into higher orders of structure and meaning) rooted in an existential narrative (a story about why we exist). This narrative takes the forms of myth, a story connecting an ahistorical origin of a people ("Long ago..." "Before the world began...") to a moral vision of the contemporary world -- how the world is, ought to be, and will be.

In many contemporary, industrial, post-Enlightenment societies the symbols and images associated with Christianity, its mythology, and its ritual institutions have become problematic.

For those with little knowledge of the religion itself or of its theology and history, the symbols, images, and references to Biblical and non-Biblical stories of faith hold little meaning except for their association with the most visible aspects of Christianity such as televangelism, homophobic and sexist political tirades, and the sex abuse scandals.

For those with limited but intense exposure, such as people who grew up in a socially conservative and fundamentalist evangelical form of Christianity and abandoned it as ignorant, deceptive, or intolerant, the moral/emotional association with the symbols, images, and stories can be downright toxic.

Then there is the fact that some symbols and images and allusions to Biblical stories are so ubiquitous that the over-exposure dilutes anyone but the loudest/most visible interpretations, feeding into and reinforcing the views already described. Add in that this does not come with the widespread and developed sense of cultural literacy needed to make sense of or engage these ubiquitous elements the social smog surrounding Christianity becomes even thicker.

So is Christianity doomed? What can the Church try that it hasn't pursued already? Jump below the break to find out.

The Trinity and Buddhism? Social Trinitarianism and Dependent Co-Arising

Andrei Rublev's Trinity, representing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a similar manner. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yeah, well, it may sound strange, but it's still a provocative way of approaching the topic of Buddhist-Christian dialogue. Brian McLaren gives his formulation of a particular view of the doctrine of the Trinity, a view known as Social Trinitarianism, in a recent article for Tikkun magazine. He uses this view as a basis for understanding our fundamental interconnected with all things, including each other and the source from and of which all things spring and to which they return, which sounds like part of the description of God frequently used on this blog (source, substance, and sustainer of existence) which kind of sprang out of reflections the Tao, Tathata, and Dharmakaya.

Here is a sample of what McLaren wrote:

At the heart of Social Trinitarianism is the concept of perichoresis, which images God as a dynamic unity-in-community of self-giving persons-in-relationship. The Father, Son, and Spirit in this view are not three independent units (or monads) eternally bound together in a larger unity. Nor is God one independent unit with three identical parts. Rather, each person exists in dynamic social relationship with the others, and God is the relational unity in which they relate.

Similarly, the being of one person of the Trinity is not independent of the being of the others, so that one could be subtracted and the other two would stand. Nor does the being of one person stand over against the being of the others so the Father could be defined as “not the Son or the Spirit” or the Spirit as “not the Father or the Son,” and so on. Rather, the very idea of person — whether applied to human beings or to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — is redefined in Social Trinitarianism as “being in relationship.” A person’s relationships with the others, in other words, aren’t an accessory to the person who exists apart from them. Those relationships are what and who that person is, and that person cannot be said to exist apart from those relationships. Being, then, for God as for us, means interbeing, being in relationship, so the three persons of the Holy Trinity are not merely one with each other: they are one in each other. 

...

New eyes for reading the Bible: Judgement

Last Judgement, Triptych (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What had been intended as one post has been split into a brief series. You don't have to read the rest of the series to get anything out of the post you are about to read, but it would probably help. My connection to these views and why I am writing them are also covered there.

I don't plan to go into any kind of theology about judgment in Christianity, as it's been covered before. And the starting premise is a continuation of the aforementioned post split into different parts, in which the imagery of God as Prophetic Authority is being used to explain what we could roughly compare to the concept of karma. That is, for the all the focus on what God is or isn't going to do to people, a more interesting and potentially useful way of looking at it is that judgement, resulting in a blessing or a curse, is about what people are bringing upon themselves.

The trick here is to put aside the Prophetic Authority image when you do so, or else you get into questions of theodicy. Now if you like that kind of thing, go for it. But otherwise, when thinking of God's judgement in the Bible, de-personalize it and think of it like a law, a law of cause and effect, a law of karma.

This I think helps relieve a good bit of the uncomfortable and often unnecessary discomfort with the way judgment is interpreted by contemporary readers, and it takes a lot of the wind out of the sales of the kind of fundamentalists who revel in a stern and punishing God and who get a thrill in vicariously judging others in the name of God. God isn't sitting on a throne passing judgement; rather, the universe manifests as an aspect of God, with certain natural "laws" or rules of cause and effect. Those who don't understand them or care about them are going to have more problems as they face the consequences of their ignorance or disregard. It can also be compared to being out of harmony with the Tao.

This next change in perspective can be added to the one above or practiced separately. In the tradition of the Desert Mother and Fathers of the early Church, and likely additional groups Christian and otherwise, there is a practice that I am going to co-opt and modify here. The enemies of the Bible, the Pharaoh of Exodus, the ancient Kings of Canaan, and others are taken to represent unvirtuous thoughts and feelings such as terror, hatred, greed, indifference to the suffering of others, and so on.

New eyes for reading the Bible: God

English: Bible in candlelight. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is one of those ideas, like my brief taxonomy of spirituality and religion, that I had a good while ago and then didn't get the chance to compose or finish composing. It is almost certainly true some of it has been forgotten or altered since the original inspiration.

A few points to make. This is not about a complex theological argument--it is not about debating theology in any way. It isn't about academic or left-brained discursive analysis. Nor is it about trying to get people to accept, convert to, or practice any form of Christianity. If you are overly argumentative or hyper-sensitive about religion, please refer back to these points if you feel the urge to complain.

I am not endorsing this perspective personally as something that I deeply believe, it just seems like a better/more interesting way to read the Bible. If you don't care for it, that's fine. I have no interest in arguing anyone into using this perspective. I am not endorsing Christianity or the Bible, nor am I trying to ignore or paint over the rough parts of either. But I do think if you are going to read the Bible, it's best to do so in a way that is going to make more sense to a modern audience and that challenges your comfortable (or uncomfortable) pre-conceptions.

So, this is basically a substitution system. Kind of like a translation, but without me actually reproducing the texts of the Bible with all of these changes awkwardly inserted. If you want to try this out, you'll have to remember or print the list and do the conversion mentally while you are reading something from the Bible or something from the Christian liturgy.

Oh, and while I develop things, you can just read the first descriptive paragraph of each major section entry in the series to get the basic translation. But you get much more if you read the rest. We begin by looking at God as Creator, God as Prophetic Authority, and God as Karma. But if you only pick one, try this first one...



God as the Creator

Try reading this as "the source or potentiality from which all energy and matter arises", especially if we are discussing God as "the Lord" or as "the Father".  In other words, read it as something beyond human comprehension or direct detection but whose effects can be observed in the manifestation of what we call existence, reality, etc. In more poetic terms, this also can be: "the invisible light by which all things can be seen", "the utter silence by which all things can be heard", "the unfelt presence by which all things can detected", "the inconceivable consciousness by which awareness and though are possible", and so on.   

Progressive Christianity embracing Contemplative Christianity?

Richard Rohr (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Not that this hasn't happened before, although many contemplative Christians are rightly worried about being labeled into any kind of theological or political pigeon hole. After all, folks like Fr. Richard Rohr who focus on the contemplative dimensions of Christianity sure sound somewhat progressive; but he and others are concerned about the danger of labels as rough description becoming labels as ideological straightjackets.

In any case, it can only be a good thing for those who espouse post-modernist, liberal, or progressive Christianity to seriously embrace contemplative prayer, meditation, and the like. The big danger for the progressives is to try to make everything into an intellectualized symbol or metaphor in opposition to a literalized interpretation. It reduces the power of wonder and mystery to the neurological correlates and psychological effects of wonder and mystery.

In other words, it's just the progressive counter-point to the fundamentalist view but is still based primarily or entirely on "left-brain consciousness". The idea of simply being with the poetic imagery, the mythical narrative, and the like, being immediately open to it and within it and experiencing it directly, becomes unavailable. The fact that you may at one instance react to a scriptural passage or hymn or prayer on a literal level, and at another instance symbolic, or at other times seeing it with both perspectives at once, and at still other times the experience is so direct there is no discrimination or analysis at all, is only available when the intuitive, holistic, or "right-brain consciousness" is also honored and permitted.

The result is that the religious elements are cleaned up to strictly secular, modernistic standards, with nothing that sounds like superstition or supernaturalism, which is basically how left-brain consciousness mixed with cynicism sees the spiritual--as full of idiotic or ignorant woo. This is because the fundamentalists, who try to take the spiritual seriously but do so in a left-brain way, turn the spiritual into idiotic or ignorant woo. To outsiders, it's all assumed to just be the same, and progressive Christians are tempted to disavow the whole lot and make their religious heritage into harmless little stories that no one should really take too seriously.

Oblation Update

c. 1437-1446 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My updates here are sometimes tardy. This one is really late.

In the fall of 2010 in the midst of re-exploring Christianity from a contemplative perspective, I thought about how my growing interest (which culminated in actually attending services at a small parish of the Episcopal Church on Trinity Sunday in 2010) was connected to the lives and writings of monastics, or "religious" as their are also known. I checked online and yes, the Anglican Communion in general and the Episcopal Church in particular had such monastic communities.

I contacted a few in late summer and early fall of 2010 and then selected one to begin a dialogue with about being an oblate, which basically means being attached to a community without taking full vows. I spent some time trying out parts or whole recitations of the Daily Office while I put together my application and continued communicating with the community. By March 2011, as I wrote last year, I was submitting my application. Then there really wasn't much written about the whole thing after that. So what happened?

Well, I got through about 10 months (starting at the end of June/beginning of July 2011 and continuing to nearly the end of March 2012). Before I even started, I was not in love with many parts of the Bible, especially the Psalter (i.e. the Psalms), and Benedictine communities read and pray a lot of the Bible, especially the Psalter. And to be honest, my hang-ups with Christianity and spiritual deafness caused me to feel like quitting the community almost as soon as I had officially started my novitiate. I sent an email withdrawing from my one year period as a novice oblate by the end of July. But over the next month I resolved a particular roadblock, not really sure what it was now exactly, and kind of wished I had stuck with it. Or maybe I just hate making choices that possess such finality. I sent an inquiry was granted a chance to continue as a novice.

This pattern of really getting frustrated with Christianity, and wondering why I continued participating in it when in general I really didn't believe a lot of it or feel any deep connection it, but then getting some insight into a theological puzzle or something similar, continued. I wouldn't really come any closer to faith or believing after such pendulous swings, but I would find something to inspire or intrigue me just enough not to give up, and I figured I might as well keep trying. I mean, maybe it would work out, and maybe it wouldn't, but why quit again unless I was really sure. They wouldn't take me back again a second time, I was pretty sure of that.

By December of 2011, I had become more familiar with the Psalms and learned more about them, but it didn't seem to help. Around this time they became the focus of my Oblate study. That didn't really help much either--I eventually found that I could appreciate them for other people but not for me. Also by that time, my plunging headlong into regular study and reflection crystallized some of what I really don't like or am not comfortable with about Christianity. It seemed as if the more I actually got into the readings and church teachings, the less I liked them. (At least as often as not, and sometimes more.) And a friendly letter I had received a little before that from a fellow novice oblate made it even clearer how differently I viewed things from those who seemed to have faith and found solace in the passages I couldn't stand. How could I ever really belong, and did I actually want to?

Look Again: Wages of Sin

GROSS KREUTZ, GERMANY - JANUARY 27: A merino lamb only a few days old stands in a pen at the Educational and Reserach Station for Animal Breeding (Lehr- und Versuchsanstalt fuer Tierzucht und Tierhaltung, or LVAT) in Brandenburg state on January 27, 2012 in Gross Kreutz, Germany. Hundreds of lambs have been born at the LVAT in recent weeks in the midst of the station's lambing season. Many of the lambs will be sold just before Easter, when they will have grown to a weight of over 40kg, as lamb is the traditional German Easter meal. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

I don't think it means what you think it means... 

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I've noticed that there is a perception that this means that people have earned death, as in their own death, as in death is cost of their actions. But it is framed as a payment, not a cost. Perhaps someone familiar with the language of the original manuscripts can speak to that. I don't claim it is an obviously flawed or indefensible way of reading it. But there is another way to look at it which may be serendipitous even if it isn't supported by such a linguistic analysis.

I read somewhere not too long ago that the meaning of the sacrifices in Judaism is sometimes misunderstood. The article was written by a Rabbi, and given that Christianity grew out of Judaism it made me think of the verse quoted above. I can't recall the name of the Rabbi, but her take on it was that the sacrifices at the temple were not about bribing God to overlook our sins but to remind us what the outcome of sin really looks like.

That is, here you have some innocent, unblemished young animal that is slaughtered and its blood spread around. It's a horror show. Just as Abraham killing his son Isaac would have been a gruesome and terrible thing. The idea then is to ask, "So was it worth it? All of the cruel, selfish, thoughtless things you did--were they worth this? The bloody slaughter of defenseless innocents?"

Look at the quote from Paul's Letter to the Romans again. Now imagine that someone came to your door and showed you pictures of slave labor by children, their raped and beaten mothers and sisters, and the polluted rivers from which they drink and said that this was your payoff for your indifference to economic and political systems from which you benefit. Not the cost, but the reward. Here you are, you've earned it!

I think there is a good reason for using a term like wages instead of "bill", "debt", "cost" or something else. If it is a bill, then it is something you worry about paying and makes you think about your own problems, which fits into those who see the crucifixion strictly in terms of substitutionary atonement. But as something you've earned, a perk or a bonus, it becomes more disturbing. There is no celebrating the crucifixion or gushing over being bathed in the blood of the innocent. Bloody sacrifice instead speaks to shame, to the terrible consequences to others of our own actions. That makes forgiveness much more uncomfortable and much more powerful.

There is speculation that animal sacrifice among the ancient Israelites was a replacement for the practice of human sacrifice thought to be common in the region. Bloody and gruesome indeed. And those who think Jesus was a lamb sacrificed in that tradition need to wonder why he wasn't killed on Yom Kippur, the actual day of atonement, rather than the Passover. But we don't need the theological spin. A good man, a holy man, who supposedly had realized his oneness with the source of all things, was killed for speaking truth to power. And not just any power, but religious collaboration with a militaristic police state that favored the wealthy over the poor. A death that has been replayed millions of times since in state sanctioned torture and murder over millenia.

And rumor has it, that holy man forgave. And many others who have faced such inhumane treatment have forgiven. Even those who your own actions and inactions have consigned to such a fate. Congratulations. Enjoy your reward. Now doesn't that serves as more motivation for repentance than horridly giddy hymns about the triumph of the cross and being covered in blood? Look again. I think some of you have missed something.

A challenging view of Jesus Christ

English: Icon of Jesus Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have written extensively giving what can be considered "challenging views" of Jesus of Nazareth and his association with the concept of the Christ, too much to point you to everything here. (If interested you can scan through the posts listed under the Christian Teachings heading of the selected archives.)

I do so not to proclaim my own personal views or to spur debates. I do so to support the resurrection of a more a more contemplative, poetic, inclusive, and compassionate Christianity which can more effectively work for peace and social justice and which can coexist in a mutually beneficial way with peoples of other religions and of none at all. The material is for Christians and non-Christians. I think this is a good thing to support.

The views of Jesus presented in this series of posts (which have been suggested or implied previously) will undoubtedly offend some Christians, which is why I refer to it as "a challenging view". If you don't want to be challenged, don't read it.

Such views include the idea that Jesus was not specially created by God to wear as a human suit, that when Jesus of Nazareth is referred to in exclusive terms this refers to a perception of non-dual unity with the universe personified as "the Christ" and represented early Jewish audiences of the Gospel in messianic terms, that we all have the potential to participate in being Christ every bit as much as  Jesus of Nazareth, that is participation doesn't require you to be formally recognized as a "Christian", that Jesus-as-Christ, Jesus the Christ, or the more familiar "Jesus Christ" represents our own innate potential for wholeness and fulfillment to act as a blessing to the world, and that an emphasis on worshiping Jesus as a savior can rapidly lead to idolatry and getting away from actually following the example of Jesus in a real and unique way. Just mimicking a 2000 year old culture or adhering to the letter of creeds and dogmas while ignoring their spirit isn't "the Way".

See what I mean about being controversial?

This particular series focuses on Christian holy days. As new additions are added they will linked below.

More on the value of the absurd in belief

Post Surreal Configuration, oil on canvas, 1939 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Originally posted on two months ago as a comment at Real Life with Ryuei (for full context visit the link).

I am wary of any “hardwired” argument for highly complex and interactive sets of behavior given the discovery of the extensiveness of neuroplasticity and the hierarchical nature of developmental regulation. Highly reproducible and even impelled complex behavior to a limited degree within the proper genetic, hormonal, anatomical, ecological and social contexts? Perhaps. Indeed, it appears that indeed some experiences which are essential for compassion, such as empathy, are either enabled, encouraged, or generated by evolved neural architecture that allow and direct us to read the body language and vocalizations of others and mimic their projected feelings. But the hard problem of consciousness remains. Does the brain generate consciousness and its attributes or focus it in an ephemeral localized expression? For all of our metaphysical and scientific investigations, a definitive answer in analytical, reductive terms remains elusive.

Yet whatever the answer to hard problem, there is also the question of why it should be that nature would produce creatures with conscious awareness or why consciousness should exist at all. In neither case do I refer to structural or adaptive arguments about origin or persistence of a trait (“consciousness is the result of the confluence of the following neurological processes which became interconnected when…” or “consciousness has the following functions that enhance inclusive fitness…”). There are even arguments that consciousness is just a sloppy shorthand for an apparent coherence to brain function that doesn’t really exist and is instead a mirage. But I am thinking here of why consciousness, whatever it is or isn’t, should exist at all in the realm of possibility.
The problem with popular depictions of mysticism is that it is often associated with a “left-brained” literalism applied to the poetic/metaphoric nature of supernatural and religious imagery, which are intended to point to that which is beyond the capacity of the rational mind grasp except in a distorted and partial glimpse. The mystical becomes tied up with buffoonish characterizations of magical thinking and the kind of dreadful superstition born of flat imagination and a desire to control the unknown and the unknowable.

It strikes me that a more genuine and useful mysticism would, in fact, be rooted in forms of consciousness which do not limit themselves to such a piecemeal approach but facilitate what is sometimes referred to as a more unitive state. This need not be assumed to be either a superior or inferior form of awareness, but perhaps simply a different way to process information and engender perception. That is, whether deep meditation merely takes us to the root of the neural processes generating conscious awareness and our most rudimentary perceptions/distinctions/valuations or whether it is pointing to a non-localized consciousness that precedes material existence, it is still taking us to the ground of being or the root of “form” (where “form” is phenomenological prior to an ontological theory of its nature or origin).

God is samsara (the fear of God)

Originally written on December 12th, 2011.

This is part of a series reflecting on God-talk and Buddhist terminology. It is an opening to dialogue, not a final word on the subject.

The fear of God has often been taken to mean either fear of divine punishment (i.e. eternity in a lake of fire) or a sense of awe so overwhelming it borders. In his writing, Thomas Merton highlights another option--the fear of facing reality. Of course, which usage makes sense depends upon the context. But for our purposes here we will use the third option.

Fear can of course also be tied to other Buddhist concepts such as impermanence (the wrath of God) and no-self (the love of God). To modify a familiar expression, we tend to favor the devil we know to the God we don't know.

Samsara is a sense of dissatisfaction with life--not just with a particular experience that has been labeled as a problem or disappointment, but with life in general. In Buddhist conception, we tend to simply react without real insight, stumbling blindly about from one thing to another and tripping over one problem while we were trying to avoid another.

Why is life so frustrating? Why is it that even when we seem to be on top, to be winning, another crisis is just around the corner? Isn't their any rhyme or reason? Isn't there a way out of this mess? This is the challenge of samsara.

Recognizing this challenge is also step toward the fear of God.

Will Christianity rediscover its relevance in the West?

A cross close to the church in Grense Jakobselv, Norway. Suomi: Risti kirkon lähellä Vuoremijoella, Norjassa. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Will Christianity rediscover its relevance in the West? While Christianity is growing in many parts of the non-Western world, it continues to age and shrink in the West while becoming seen as less credible and relevant. Yet in the United States, people are not simply rejecting anything and everything to do with either religion or spirituality. Some are turning to other traditions, such as Buddhism,while many are identifying as "spiritual but not religious". While some do refer to themselves as atheist or agnostic, not everyone who adopts such labels are hostile to religious and spiritual things.

This suggests that many folks who are abandoning or rejecting Christianity (the latter never having embraced it to begin with) are not simply "turning away from God", especially in the broad sense of God as some greater meaning to existence, a transcendent or higher power, or some deep inner light that cannot be explained or contained. They are specifically turning away from the contemporary Christian presentation of God. They are turning away from the social and political agenda associated in the popular consciousness with Christianity, especially when it involves shunning or shaming the poor, ethnic and religious minorities, homosexuals, and others who are marginalized and disenfranchised by society.

The confluence of cultural, social, economic, political, and historical factors that are involved in this transition are too complex to be mapped out and dealt with in detail here. I am going to focus on something that stands out to me, but I don't claim it is the only issue or the most important one when it comes to the decline of Christianity in the West. Yet I do think if it is taken seriously it could not only resonate in this age but actually help Christianity to remember itself. To move toward a reawakening. 

God is emptiness (the transcendence of God)

This is part of a series reflecting on God-talk and Buddhist terminology. It is an opening to dialogue, not a final word on the subject.

Emptiness. If you are ever going to get tired of hearing people talk about a Buddhist concept this has to be a front runner.

If you spend time reading about emptiness in popular magazines and books or popular websites, you will learn that some older translations into English included "void", and that this negative impression still remains with emptiness.

In attempting to correct this, other images are sometimes suggested. Emptiness refers to a lack of something, but what? One expression popularized by Tibetan Buddhists is that things don't exist "on their own side". Chan/Zen Buddhists favor "lack of intrinsic existence". Pure Land Buddhists, Nichiren Buddhists, and others have similar variations on this theme.

Another way to approach the matter is to turn the negative into a positive. If something does not exist under its own power or will (emptiness), but is instead made up of and connected to other things (dependent co-arising), then everything must be subject to change (impermanence) and hence can only exist because they are not permanent and independent objects (no-self). The capacity for change, the formless ground from which phenomena emerges, can be thought of as the essence of potential itself. The power of possibility. 

That sounds much more affirming and exciting than talking about what things are not. Yet it is precisely in emphasizing what things, including our basic categories of perception and thought, are not that emptiness does its best work. This is probably because emptiness itself is not a thing at all, but an insight about things.

Simple, right?

The two-truths model applied to Jesus and the Cross

Image via Wikipedia

The two-truths model in Buddhism suggests that we must look at any spiritual reading and discern whether it is referring to an ahistorical, or timeless, truth which is only approached indirectly through mythic language and metaphor or whether it is referring to a more mundane truth about particular events as seen with ordinary eyes. The former is sometimes referred to as belonging to a deeper and more inclusive view of reality, while the latter is confined to a narrower empirical view reinforced by our general understanding of how things are supposed to be.

This does not mean that a religious view is always on the level of the mythical/mystical level of understanding or that secular views are always generic/mundane. Someone who takes miraculous language literally (it says Jesus turned water into wine and therefore actual water became actual wine) is rendering that teaching in an ordinary mode of perception, while someone who takes everyday language poetically (such as someone who feels a new sense of depth and interconnectedness upon hearing that we are all made of star dust) is rendering that teaching in an extraordinary mode of perception.

The more inclusive mode has been referred to by teachers such as Thich Nhat Hahn as the ultimate perspective and the more restrictive mode has been dubbed the relative perspective. The challenge for interpreting Biblical texts with this approach to determine which passages and images should be taken from the ultimate perspective and which from the relative.

Take the figure of Jesus and the symbolism of his Cross, for example.

God is suffering (the grace/mercy of God)

This is part of a series reflecting on God-talk and Buddhist terminology. It is an opening to dialogue, not a final word on the subject.

Suffering. It's something that, if we were to be honest, we would list our relationship with as "complicated". You hear or read that humans want to avoid suffering, and yet if that were true, then why do we seem to spend so much time seeking it out or creating the conditions necessary for it to thrive?

In some sense, our egos may actually want suffering. They want the challenge and the conflict in which suffering is one side of a dichotomy which also involves some notion of pleasure. A kind of pleasure that can be captured, contained and curated. A pleasure that can be extended forever. Which is why the ego spends so much time rewriting memories and imagining an ideal future.

It isn't the case that cherishing memories or anticipating the future is somehow wrong or destructive, it is rather the issue of how and why this happens. In any case, the ego also needs suffering to justify its own over-blown sense of importance as the problem solver. If suffering ends, then the effort to solve the problem of suffering ends.

Another tangle in the topic of suffering is just what it entails. Does it include pain and discomfort? How do misery and despair fit in?

God is no-self (the love of God)

This is part of a series reflecting on God-talk and Buddhist terminology. It is an opening to dialogue, not a final word on the subject.


No-self is a teaching that is hard to comprehend and even harder to realize consciously as lived experience. The Westernized translations tend to go like this: While one does not exist intrinsically, as a self-sufficient and self-contained entity, nothing about the self is unreal. Only the perception of the self as existing on its own forever unchanging and apart from everything else is unreal.

The same can be said of the love of God -- that is, everything else is unreal.

There is an image in Christian mysticism which has been captured in a famous icon of the Holy Trinity by Rublev wherein three angels, representing the three aspects of God, are each inclined to one of the others. The love of God creates and completes this circuit as it creates and completes all things in a dynamic equilibrium. The Father (emptiness) gives rise to the Son (form) which dissolves revealing the Father (emptiness).  This dynamic movement is the essence of the Spirit.

In this view, then, the love of God cannot be captured or limited but flows ceaselessly through all things. But this love can be missed if one tries to set up artificial boundaries or distinctions, even really productive and useful labels and models to help make sense of the world. This is especially true of limiting beliefs about one's identity.