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.

Too much or too little thinking in religion?

Image by Transguyjay via FlickrHave you ever felt that there was too little thinking among religious people? Did you know there are some who think there is too much?

It really depends on what we mean by "thinking" and how it is applied.

Naturally those who have run across religious people who are narrow-minded, intolerant and whose words and actions broadcast that faith is the antithesis of reason will be tempted to conclude that if these people would only think more, and do so critically, they would either be a more enlightened religious person or abandon religion altogether.  The outcome depends on which of those is closest to the critics own preferred self-image.

Then there are those who think that the liberating message of religion is being held hostage by the elites, which include those with more access to education and with more time to wax philosophically about the meaning of it all. They conclude that any genuine spirituality should be accessible to any sincere seeker with any level of formal education. Others feel that thinking too much on one level of analysis about religious ideas or practices can be a problem because it closes off avenues to other forms of experience.

Those who think there is too much thinking in religion and that there is too little are both right and both wrong.

Is the medium ever the message in spirituality?

Image by jimforest via FlickrHave you ever visited a shrine or a temple or cathedral, maybe a synagogue or a mosque, and felt a vital energy and a connection to something ancient and mysterious?

Maybe you've had the experience around monasteries or monastic individuals, or when contemplating a statue or icon. Perhaps around something similar, such as an undisturbed and majestic natural space?

One way to look at it is that something in your own experience of being has resonated with something in these forms giving a sense of connection. But what then? Where does that feeling or experience take us and what do we make of it?

Caveman Og and the problem of religious mystery

Image via Wikipedia

Meet Og.

He is the foil used by a friend when trying to talk about a proto-human way of thinking -- when our brains and minds were in a sense modern but when the basic conventions of culture they would shape were still embryonic.  This is not imply the fallacy of the hapless "unevolved" brute, or to assume that people lived in caves (or even always at camps at rock shelters).  I for one firmly accept the dignity and recognize the capacities of our ancestors.  Many people like to use examples like Og in their though experiments, especially evolutionary psychologists who use Og and his ilk to talk about the environment that shaped our mental evolution.

Og also has something to tell us about the problem of religious mystery.

Is God a person or just some vague cosmic force?

Is there, in fact "one all-powerful force controlling everything"?  Perhaps a "mystical energy field" that controls your destiny?  Is there some great big guy in the sky who is watching your every move from a throne and ready to judge you if you don't think or act the right way?  Or is such talk based on "simple tricks and nonsense"?

There are times when someone else has said something so well, it is better to let them speak on the matter and add a bit of commentary.

Let's talk read some Kung.

Ajahn Punnadhammo ponders "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

An interesting take on the premise surrounding Stephen Hawking's new book The Grand Design and the general issues surrounding can be found at Bhikku's Blog, written by Canadian born Theravadan monk Ajahn Punnadhammo.

There is a lot of truth to what is written there, especially the point about the limits of the human mind in speculating on such matters is something too often missing from the discussion of such issues.  Yet it is valuable to take a look at some assumptions made as well for comparative purposes, in this case to my own reflections on the issues raised by the press coverage of Hawking's book. 

Because Bhikku Ajahn Punndhammo (referred to as BAP hereafter) uses theism to compare and contrast a Buddhist view, it is helpful first to distinguish between the uses of the term.  In some circles, it refers to the idea that there is any meaning or point to existence other than the most limited, superficial and subjective notions.  Closely related to this (and often connected with it) is the notion that there is a source to existence which isn't explained strictly in terms of what humans describe as and refer to as natural laws.  In such cases, many Buddhists and forms of Buddhism would be labeled theistic.

The legacy of Raimon Panikkar

"I left Europe [for India] as a Christian, I discovered I was a Hindu and returned as a Buddhist without ever having ceased to be a Christian." 

That quote has been seen in practically every mention of the passing of Raimon Panikkar I have run across. I confess, I did cease being a Christian on my way to Buddhism. I never met the man or heard him lecture, but I was introduced to him through the writings of the late Brother Wayne Teasdale, specifically in The Mystic Heart. A particularly insightful piece on the life of Panikkar offers this introduction to his work and fleshes out the above quote informs us:

Panikkar did not confuse or conflate historical contingency with spiritual truth. In Hinduism and Buddhism Panikkar found other languages, in addition to Biblical Hebrew, Greek philosophy, and Latin Christianity, to express the core convictions (the kerygma) of the Christian tradition.

"Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot" spurs additional questions, conclusion

[This is the second half of an essay written based on responses to a previous entry, Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot.]


If we want to explore the source and fundamental character of existence, we can do this with various metaphysical programs available to us such science.  This is the route that brilliant and distinguished minds such as Hawking have taken, and all of humanity benefits from the insights offered by such labors.  Yet such efforts inevitably lead to the problem that we cannot out-think our own brains and their mental limits in perceiving and pondering existence.  We trace causes and effects and necessary conditions as far as we can, but it would be foolish to think that reaching this limit is the same as having a complete and final answer.  Some people may not care what else there may be to know or some may simply reject any other way of knowing.  That is their choice.

If that is the case, we simply have our mysterious source of phenomena like gravity (the same source as any cause that is found for gravity, and for the cause of that cause, and the cause of that cause).  Again, in the theology we are discussing, however many causes you add, they are contained within and an aspect of the Divine.  God isn't simply a link in the causal chain, even the hypothetical first link.  God is the steel of the chain and the shape of the steel and that in which the chain exists.  Again, this leaves some of us wondering about the relevance of such a remote God, while others may also be asking whether there isn't another avenue to discover more about the fundamental nature of existence.

"Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot" spurs additional questions

I am grateful to those who have taken the time to respond to Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot. Sometimes comments about such topic whether mentioned here or elsewhere simply draw out particular ideologues who want to do some rhetorical chest thumping without any real reflection, so your thoughtful replies are appreciated.

There is a question which is tangential to the point of the aforementioned essay, but I do think it is worth exploring on its own. The question asks what basis there is for connecting the force which created the universe to the mystical experience of love. Now, in the previous essay I made it clear I do not believe that one needs to invoke God as a match lighter for the Big Bang, so we can replace "force which created the universe" with "the source of universe". To appreciate this essay you really do need to read the one which led us here, especially where I write:

Book Recommendation: "Tattoos on the Heart" by Gregory Boyle

The website caption for Fr. Greg Boyle's organization reads:  "Homeboy Industries assists at-risk and formerly gang-involved youth to become positive and contributing members of society through job placement, training and education."   While apparently accurate, having read about his experiences first hand it seems like a bit of an understatement.

Tattoos on the Heart contains the insights received by Fr. Boyle through his work in the gang capital of LA. Powerful almost seems an understatement as you read through the stories of this priest's life work with those who are commonly called "gang-bangers", for whom he uses the more casual and respect term "homies".  This is just one of many ways Fr. Boyle reveals the humanity of people whom the news and popular culture tends to portray as thugs. It possesses much compassionate wisdom and a practical theology that can move anyone, whether they believe in God or not.

The book overflows with its central message -- that we are made for joy and we are loved.  Emphasizing the expansiveness and inclusiveness of God and the importance of standing with the marginalized and the outcast rather than merely standing for them (from a safe distance), this book is not short on inspiration nor education.  Each vignette about a particular homie can readily serve as the basis for contemplation, a la lectio divina.

Information systems, ambiguity, diversity, grammar and the Divine

In any information system, there is a direct relationship between complexity and risk for error. Another way to think of it is that diversity requires ambiguity. Imagine you want to attach meaning to a signal. The only signal is a continuous monotone.

Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep...

Image via Wikipedia

So you have one possible meaning or message for this signal. That is it. Because the signal has no variation in tone or duration or anything else, it has a very low information content. It could stand for something that make take 100 years to say, but it can only stand for that one something. The upside is that no matter how much interference you have, if even part of the signal is received, the full content of its meaning is received with zero miscommunication. Let's change it up, so that it is still continuous but now we have two possible tones. We have increased the potential information or meaning conveyed slightly and increased a risk of miscommunication slightly. Now let us add 100 new tones. We now have many more potential meanings, more information content, but also more chance of being misunderstood. We could also add diversity and allow for new kinds of variation by allowing the signal to be non-continuous and differ in length of duration. We could add more by allowing the different signals to change meaning.

We can also phrase it this way: You need ambiguity in order to have diversity. And this isn't just true for communication. It is true for every system based in information (and can we think of any that is not?). For example, it is a prime feature of biological evolution and quantum theory. It is also true for discussing the Divine. When we refer to the Tao, or Shunyata, or the Ground of Being, there is the idea that it is the foundation of existence itself. That is is ineffable because it is the source of all potential. This makes perfect sense that the Source of phenomena would, from the perspective of the phenomenal world, appear to the be the ultimate in ambiguity and indescribability

Staying with the communication analogy, if we open the system too much -- if we allow too many signals to change meanings too often -- we will be overwhelmed by the vagueness, also referred to as openness, and things will be too random to makes sense. We need to have rules that allow us to attach and retrieve meaning from the signals. These rules, called grammar, provide limitations, and hence structure, to all information systems. The more complex the system is, the more nuanced the grammar needs to be. If we are thinking in a cosmological sense, we can also say that meaning is the pattern of connections existing between and that which is allowing the existence of various phenomena. What we call meaning is often our attempt to interpret these patterns and our assumption that they can or should be interpreted. As an example, science could be compared then to studying the grammar of nature.

Taking it back to an attempted discussion of the Divine, one aspect correlates to ambiguity and the "space" or potential necessary for (a diversity of) phenomena to exist. This is the part that is beyond analytical comprehension and cannot be described. Another aspect correlates to the grammar and allows for coherence, allowing for a non-random existence. This is the part that can be broadly observed by the qualities of existence/being. It is still beyond our full comprehension or detection, but it does correlate to logic. Both are necessary for the full mystery and coherence of God.