God's nature as revealed by Jesus and the Biblical narrative

Image via Wikipedia

I was recently reading something at Wordgazer addressing the question, "Are those of us who follow a gentler version of Christianity really just deceiving ourselves about the real truth of what our religion is about?"

The author, Kristen, brings up her view of accommodation, that the Bible must be interpreted in a way that can be received and understood within a particular cultural and historical context. That is, rather than a straight reading, which can include misunderstanding based on our own ethnocentrism, the emphasis is one what was assumed and taken for granted in the particular setting in which a specific book of the Bible was written and was was new or exceptional in what was being said. This form of exegesis, for example, might recognize that sexist and violent imagery was common in a particular time and place and see its presence in a passage as uninformative. It would ask, "Yes, but what is different here?" And then it would try to take that difference and understand it's meaning for a contemporary audience.

Kristen then takes up a the position of the Bible as narrative, suggesting that the an unfolding theme or story can be seen in the various books of the Bible leading to a kind of progressive revelation. The teachings and example of Jesus are taken to be the culmination and final form of this revelation, even if it continues to be distorted to some degree by the views and beliefs of the Gospel writers and the authors of the various letters that make up the rest of the New Testament. This is supposed to free themes such as universal love, acceptance, peace, and nonviolence from Biblical passages suggesting indifference, division, division, strife, and violence. The overall effect is to try to translate as much of the social and personal context as possible to extract and purify some presumed key messages, perhaps how love and acceptance lead to forgiveness and reconciliation between people and between people and God.

But is it that simple?

The Psalms still sound awful to me

Image via Wikipedia

You may not be familiar with the Psalms. Even folks who have a favorite or two memorized or read portions of them on Sundays often aren't. But whether you are or aren't, here is a list I previously published about the take-away message I was getting from them as of last February. The basic themes I identified for the Psalmist(s) were:

• waiting for God (to help, to save, to be a friend, etc)
  
• trying to follow the Jewish laws and requirements
• claims his innocence
• then confesses his guilt
• bargaining/negotiating a trade of obedience for blessings
• desperate and fearful of mocking, violent, dishonest enemies
• angry at the the oppressors and murderers
• equates justice with blessing for the poor and oppressed
• equates justice with the horrible suffering and the swift destruction of the wicked and powerful
• recognizes (at least partially) the mercy and splendor of God
• sitting and lying down are equated with those stuck in sin
• walking and running are equated living in righteousness
• the (coming) judgment of God is good news to the weak, the infirm, the slave and the prisoner
• doesn't understand why God hasn't yet rendered judgment 
• maintains faith in God despite misgivings and disappointments 

It's interesting to me that even the most progressive or contemplative people in the Christian traditions, especially the vowed Religious, in a sense swear by them and affirm them as the very heart and soul of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Not only that, but I recall people who are in other sacred traditions and even some non-religious people speaking in glowing terms about the Psalms.  I am at times genuinely hard pressed to understand why that is.

Seriously.

Disturbing news from a Chinese blog(ger) I follow

I have no idea to what make of this...

Update on No Updates

This post is from Jie's webmaster.

Sorry there have been no updates to "Ecumenical Buddhism" lately. From what I have been told, Jie has been kidnapped by Tibetan seperatists who found out where he was traveling in Sichuan, and has been unable to submit updates to me. His family are trying to secure his release by directly negotiating with this secessionists, choosing not to involve the Chinese government in this. Updates will resume as soon as he can be freed from these terrorists. Even though these extremists have done this, Jie would be the first to say that such actions do not represent the Tibetan people or Tibetan Busshism as a whole, these individuals are extremists misrepthe true teachings of their supposed faith for secular reasons of power.

Update: Per request, here is a way to donate money to Jie's family to help gain his release...

Picnics for peace and other idiotic pacifist ideas

In the documentary film 10 Questions for the Dalai Lama, His Holiness suggests that one way we might see more peace in troubled areas such as Jerusalem is to have more gatherings like picnics and festivals. No doubt this strikes many people as foolish. After all, it is a religiously political struggle? (Or is a politically religious struggle?) Inequity and injustice require some kind of top down solution, right? Economic, military, etc. You've got to have high level meetings, and political road maps, and a week at Camp David between the leaders of the parties in conflict, right? Having people meet and greet is just idiotic. Isn't it? Do we really buy all of the teachings of such renowned spiritual leaders?

But let us ask ourselves why the Clinton initiative failed to bring a peace settlement in Israel. There is no single reason, but a huge one includes speculation that Yasser Arafat knew his people wouldn't accept the terms he was negotiating, and his counterpart, Ehud Barak, claimed he couldn't offer any more concessions. Both leaders realized they couldn't get any closer without alienating key segments of their populations, particularly powerful political supporters. This kind of impasse is rooted in the attitudes of certain groups of Palestinians and Israelis toward each other and fed by past and present conflict. These attitudes, which perpetuate and support the political and economic structures producing inequality and conflict, include distrust, fear, and hatred.

Daryl Davis and the Klan

Now let's turn to another historic example of distrust, fear, and hatred - the Ku Klux Klan and African-Americans. You may not be familiar with Daryl Davis. I first heard about him when his story was included in the film Understanding Race (part of the Films for the Humanities series). I later learned that he had published a book about his experiences going to Klan meeting called Klan-destine Relationships. None of this may strike you as peculiar until you hear the subtitle of the book: A Black Man's Odyssey in the Ku Klux Klan. His story is also told in a brief article that appeared in the Washington Post.

In brief, Davis met people who were in the Klan and was eventually invited to a Klan meeting. He was curious and friendly and non-judgmental, and became a familiar face at Klan events. In fact, an Imperial Wizard made Davis the godfather of his child. But what is really interesting is that his presence has been a catalyst which has led many members, including that Imperial Wizard, to quit the Klan. Some have even given Davis their robes, which he keeps in his closet. Imagine that - self-identified white supremacists quitting the Klan not because Davis laid on a guilt trip, not because he debated them into submission, but because of his persistent friendly presence.

The mechanics of changing perspective

One theory of how we form expectations about the world is that we organize our experiences into meaningful clusters we then name. This is called a schema. When we select a schema or a composite of schemas to be the standard for evaluating similar schemas. This standard is called a prototype. Similar schemas orbit loosely around the prototype, creating a category with fuzzy boundaries. For example, if we use our experiences to form a schema of holiday, we might include "having family over" and "preparing a large meal". When we experience a holiday without a big meal, we might remark that is just didn't seem like a holiday, because we were using that schema as a prototype to evaluate new experiences.

We can also use the example of the category automobile, in which we use our experiences with cars to form the basis of a schema which is then promoted to the prototype of the automobile category. Hence we may call a truck or jeep a "car", even though there are differences between trucks, jeeps, and cars. Trucks and jeeps are orbiting the idea of car-ness, which may include elements like "large rubber tires", "carries multiple passengers", "runs on an engine", "has pedals and a steering wheel".

This theory can help make sense of the relationship between Daryl Davis, the Klan, and the members who quit. I am not suggesting this theory must be true in every case, but a theory isn't much good if it has no explanatory power, so we can at least see if it produces a workable explanation. People in the Klan tend to have a particular kind of schema they use as the prototype for black people, which we might expect to be very negative. They had a new experience - a black man who wasn't angry or judgmental towards them and who seemed like a really friendly and sincere guy. This didn't match the expectations of the prototype of a black man. In some cases, the continued exposure formed that basis of a new schema of black people that either challenged or replaced the previous prototype (which in this case would correlate to the term stereotype). This sparked a re-evaluation of membership in an organization premised on a particular view of minorities.

This can be condensed into "they changed their minds when they actually got to know a black man", but the process involved - how and why they were prejudiced and the components of changing one's mind - are important. If Davis had been angry or judgmental, this might have reinforced a schema which includes an image of black people as angry and judgmental towards whites. It also highlights how important external influences can be in shaping our attitudes about anything and everything we encounter in our lives.

The relevance to conflict prevention and resolution

Turning back to the Dalai Lama and Jerusalem, I don't presume the Dalai Lama made his suggestion based on the mechanics of a theory from the social and behavioral sciences of the West. Instead, his Buddhist training and the wisdom of a lifetime of exposure to conflict and prejudice showed him the basic pattern, however we might wish to frame it. It would be unfair to say that he thinks that a few picnics will end all of the violence, but I do think he is pointing towards generating shared positive experiences between opposing or distrustful groups in order to offer a basis for new and more positive appreciation of each other. With such a grassroots change in attitude, the existing political and economic structures generating inequality and conflict between the sides would lose much of their support. If enough of the people want peace, they will have it.

People don't live in the abstract - in the "national" or the "global" scene. They live in the every day of their individual lives. Whether attempted solutions to the largest problems in society will either succeed or fail turns on what individuals experience and do in the everyday.

Arming the Saffron Revolution

What do you think of the idea of Burmese monks arming themselves and fighting a pitched battle against the ruling military junta? In a recent article from the Christian Science Monitor, "Monks with guns? Burma's younger activists get bolder", Anand Gopal writes that this is what a segment of younger Burmese monks are advocating in response to last year's crackdown in which dozens of peaceful protesters were killed and several hundred were detained or imprisoned. In response to a reposting of this article at The Buddhist Channel, Jeff Wilson wrote a reflection, "Monks with Guns?", at the Tricycle Editors Blog. His piece isn't a justification for these monk's to take up arms but it does offer an interesting historical context for this unfolding story. Many of the opinions expressed over this topic insist in absolute and no uncertain terms that these monks are wrong, that they don't follow the true Dharma, that the wisdom and compassion of the Buddha does not ever allow for violence. But is whether the monks are acting in what outsiders would an acceptably Buddhist fashion the issue of importance here, or is it the validity of the Buddha's teachings on such matters and the potential consequences of an armed monastic resistance for the people of Burma?

I wonder at times about the price of advocating non-violence at any cost when the advocates themselves live in an open and wealthy society and are more often than not in the ethnic majority. I am not suggesting insincerity on the part of such people - we can be just as dedicated to our values as the disenfranchised minorities - but I find it hard to personally judge or condemn the attitudes of these frustrated and grieving monks without having experienced the kind of inhuman brutality and disregard for life that some of them have witnessed their entire lives and which peaked one year ago. I am not being beaten and jailed, nor are my friends and family. I haven't suffered under that system my whole life, watching injustice after injustice. I can sign a petition, watch Jim Carrey or other celebrities plead for me to get involved, and then get up from the computer and go to bed without fear that government spies may have given up my location or that I will be abducted in the middle of the night by the police.

When it comes to topics such as abortion and other sensitive issues many Western-raised Buddhists, particularly those who feel they are on the correct side of an issue, are quick to emphasize the situation by situation angle for ethical judgments in Buddhism rather than a rigid code of moralistic prescriptions of "Thou shalts..." and "Thou shalt nots..." Don't try to paint us with your black and white brush. The world isn't like that! Is this really so different? Or do we just presume somehow that we know better and can tell when to apply one standard and when to apply another? I am not advocating or condoning violence by anyone, including these monks. I am not arguing on their behalf for you to support the idea of arming the Saffron Revolution. But I do get concerned sometimes by how we all can get so good at hearing and applying the Dharma in way that suits our own preferences.

Buddhist or no, this kind of judgment can mutate into a form of politically-fueled ethnocentrism, the gauging of one culture or society from the perspective or standards of another. Should we be more concerned about judging the "Buddhist-ness" of the monks who are expressing their despair and outrage or would our energy be better directed at campaigning, through educating the public and our elected officials, for a realistic and substantial approach to improving conditions on the ground for the people of Burma? And would the real tragedy be a violation of Buddhist beliefs or an even more vicious response against the monks and their supporters by the military government? If the monks do decide to arm themselves, will it be their "failure" alone, or will those of us sitting comfortably on the other side world, who failed to take action toward providing an alternative - a reason to hope - have some sense of responsibility? Interdependence in cause and effect. Isn't that another important Buddhist teaching?

US CAMPAIGN FOR BURMA