In My Defense

My beliefs are just that, beliefs. I try to hold them lightly but when my beliefs get attacked I tend to clutch onto them as if they were a life-raft. In the heat of the discussion we forget that we are not the raft, we merely hang onto it. But why do we hold on so tightly? Will we sink if we let go? It's only recently that I fully understood why I took these attacks so personally: I associated an attack on my beliefs as an attack on me as a person. I felt as if they were attacking who I am instead what I believe.

But that's silly! How could any of us confuse who we are with what we believe? We are not a collection of beliefs and ideas, we're more than that. So much more. Yet we tenderly care for that which we are connected to, who we are connected to, and as seen in the news, places to which we share a strong connection. It is the relationship between people, places, and things which we seek to defend, not the things themselves. An idea, a belief, is what it is and doesn't need defending only understood. I'm not saying that beliefs are not worth defending but that we get so caught up in defending them that we forget who we are. Two people can debate and discuss different viewpoints without taking it too personally because they're not talking about each other (at least we hope) but sharing our innermost thoughts on a given subject. For example let's take the theology of Jesus' divinity. Two debaters, two human debaters I may add, can list why they believe or disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus. The believer can cite his/her reasons for believing in Jesus' divinity along with any evidence to support their conclusions. It is up to the disbeliever to understand the believer's position,what it means to them, and how it affects their relationship with other people. Yet relationship is not a one-way street so both camps must strive for the highest level of mutual understand of the other camp's position not in the spirit of convincing (let alone conversion) but to build relationships.

We talk, share, and discuss with one another because we're wildly social creatures! And if we truly want to strengthen and extend our relationships with one another we must guide our conversations in an open manner so that we can actually hear each other. We don't have to completely divorce our beliefs from our identity because they are a part of us, they are but one minute component in the complex organism which makes us human. We can no more understand how a clock works by studying one individual gear than we can sum up the makeup of our neighbor by a singular belief. Can a singular belief be foundational in shaping a person's character? Sure it can, but are they better or worse because of it? Does it guide them to compassion and love, or hatred and mistrust? You can't understand your neighbor with your bag of presumptions. Of course, these are just my beliefs.

Try Jesus

During my free time if my nose is not buried in a book (currently reading The Truth by the Oracle Institute) then I'm busy scouring the net for religious documentaries. Yesterday I happen to stumble upon one from January 15,1998 (yeesh, I was 13) on Fundamentalist Christianity. Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends was a documentary series on BBC 2, which ran from 1998-2000, which presented the lives of groups and individuals the viewer wouldn't normally come in contact with on a daily basis. Fundamentalist Christianity may not be as prevalent in the U.K. (if existent) but if you live in the Bible Belt it's the norm. You can watch the entire program here.

There really isn't an easy way to interview a conservative or Fundamentalist Christian without either offending them or being put in an awkward situation. Louis, unlike other documentary filmmakers, not only respectfully tiptoed around potentially heated conversation but willingly put himself in dreadfully awkward situations for the experience. He interviewed Marcus and Joni Lamb of Daystar Television Network, witnessed with members of The Family (now known as Family International) in Deep Ellum entertainment district, and concluded by going to hear Marcus Lamb speak at a revival. All throughout the documentary you can tell Louis, who's a non-christian by the way, wanted to say more but held his tongue. His mission, in part, was to see if he could be converted, and not 4 minutes into the program and Louis was already asked if he wanted to be born again. He just didn't get IT, and you can see how badly the Christians wanted him to understand how easy it was to accept Christ.

Growing up as a Christian I never felt the anxiety Louis felt towards the end during the altar call because I had IT. Whatever IT was, I had IT. It came naturally and I didn't have to struggle to understand IT. I didn't have to make a choice to accept Jesus into my heart because he was already there. But as I came to learn more about the world, other religions, as well as the history of Christianity (which the version of Christian history I grew up with was extremely sugar coated) I had lost IT. Was I thinking too much? Did I choose not believe? Did I allow the evils of knowledge and science to overwhelm my faith in Christ? No, I never made any conscious effort to leave God nor do I believe that using the fullest potential of our minds is cause for loss of faith. I just didn't feel IT, and nor did Louis at the revival. He wanted to believe, to feel something, the intent was present but there was nothing. So what happens to Louis, or more importantly, what's going to happen to me? Did we fail because we chose not to believe, or did we fail because we didn't feel the Spirit? Does choosing to believe come before the entrance of the Spirit, and if our salvation is dependent on that initial choice what governs the process of making that initial choice? Our heart, our mind, or something else?

Reading through the comment section at Documentary Tube I came across an interesting comment. Here's a snippet.

"Yet, he had not the courage to even try an altar call…hmmm, must have scared him. Curious, if it has that power, then it has substance, no?"

I don't believe it was fear that kept Louis from "trying" the altar call but he wanted to be sincere about accepting Jesus. If he tried Jesus, tried the altar call, he would essentially be lying if he didn't feel anything. If you want to be cynical about it you could say his nervous appearance was merely theatrics, a show, and this is very possible. But for the everyday person seeking the Divine and struggling to find it within a particular belief system, this may be a dire realistic situation for the seeker. They may choose to seek and reach out but if they do not feel the connection the seeker is blamed.

It seems as if it all boils down to choice, but if given the choice to be with the Divine or become eternally separated from IT, who in their right mind would actually choose the latter? And if we do make the wrong choice, based on whatever reasoning, how can anyone label an eternity of suffering as divine justice for making a wrong choice as fallible creatures? This is why I can not accept that the Divine is accessible through only one avenue of revelation. What works for you may not work for me. This does not dilute the value of your connection because it STILL works for you as mine works for me. As long as the connection is there, it doesn't matter how you approach the Divine.

The Security of Answers

My journey these last 4 years began as a search for answers to questions which rocked the foundation of my spirituality. Ironically, this quest began in part as a search to stabilize my beliefs soon after my wife and I found out she was carrying our first born. Life changing news spawned a life changing journey. I did not choose to "lose my faith" as some have claimed, no more than I enjoy the arguments and shattered hearts of friends and family caused by the fallout. All I sought was what billions of people seek everyday: security of answers to a chaotic life.

[Stumbled upon this site which allows you to create your own church sign via RNS.]

Many would claim that the journey is noble but the information obtained along the way is flawed. Believers are accepting of open-minded seekers as long as they're open-minded about their specific beliefs (while rejecting all others). Any unorthodox questions are seen as unnecessary and at times dangerous. Why? Because some questions may cause us to doubt the very foundation of truth we stand upon as Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. So apologetics buttress their religion with evidence which, with a pinch of reason and logic (not too much though), becomes their main pitching points to converting the curious spiritual traveler. Yet the traveler is not let off the hook that easily, it's not a matter of simply choosing one over the other based on evidence. Each religious vendor is secure that all the "Others" are selling you an inferior product. The vendor becomes bewildered, distraught, and at times explosive for brushing away their foundational truth.

People who claim to be spiritual but not religious, like myself, are not looking for a set of answers or a path to follow, but an experience. This experience can be found in religion but is not exclusive to religion, nor even one specific religion. Religious believers would argue otherwise, because, in my humble opinion, they are so rooted in their experience they can't imagine experiencing the Divine in any other language (i.e. religion) especially when spoken by the Other, the Enemy. Believers connect with each other through images, symbols, language which all point to That, the Unnameable. Yet many of us feel there is much more beyond our set of symbols which I believe is currently reflected in the recent PEW study on religion among the Millennials (us young kids born after 1980). Millennials crave connection, interaction, and experience which is greatly reflected in our culture, media, technology, and points of intersection (e.g. online social networks). This overwhelming desire to be connected with others break down all sorts of walls carefully constructed by mankind's darkest fears. There is no longer any need to fear the outsider because there is NO OUTSIDER, there is no They. There is no longer any need to fight over resources because we have enough to go around (although our fears keep us from sharing). This amazing embrace of the outsider, the Other, the "enemy" decimates our need to cling desperately to the answers we absorbed in our culture, society, and Sunday school.

Homosexuals aren't out to destroy marriage.
Muslims aren't out to conquer Christianity.
Atheists aren't out to kill God.

They're people too! They bleed, cry, breathe, walk, and talk like us. When we liberate ourselves from the need to feel secure by our bag of answers we are free to comfort one another. By admitting we don't have all the answers we can lean on one another through this chaotic life. I don't put my security in answers I put my security in questions, because when we wrestle with the questions our collective consciousness evolves. When we stop asking questions, we stop learning, we stop growing, we stop loving.

What Are You Doing Here?

1 Kings 19:9-13 (NIV)

⁹ ...And the word of the LORD came to him: "What are you doing here, Elijah?" ¹⁰ He replied, "I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too." ¹¹ The LORD said, "Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by."
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. ¹² After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. ¹³ When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
Then a voice said to him, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"

[Elijah in the Wilderness, by Lord Frederick Leighton, 1878]

---

Elijah, spiritually and physically drained, ran for his life and desperately pleaded for God to end it. He had had enough as a prophet, he had failed. Alone, depressed, and suicidal (no one walks into a desert willingly especially without provisions) in his most desperate hour he tells God that he quits.

⁴ He came to a broom tree, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. "I have had enough, LORD," he said. "Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors." 1 Kings 19:4 (NIV)

After restoring his strength with food and water brought by an angel he continues his forty day journey to God's main office: Mount Horeb (a.k.a. Mount Sinai). Maybe he was actively seeking God to restore his faith or just maybe he was making the journey to turn in his resignation. When he reaches Horeb the Lord questions Elijah, "What are you doing here?"

Those of us who actively seek the Divine, purpose, or even meaning in life come to a point where we want to resign and give it all up. What are we doing HERE? It may be at a dim point of our lives when we are faced with this question, and we may want nothing to do with answering it. Yet the question remains, what are YOU doing HERE?

The Lord asked Elijah to stand on the holy mountain for the Lord was about to pass by. There Elijah encountered three acts of Nature: a mighty wind, a tremendous earthquake, and a terrible fire. After each the text tells us that God was not in any of them. Was Elijah expecting God to be in any of them? I believe so, which made the final event for the prophet even more startling than the first three. Elijah comes from a tradition where the Divine speaks and acts through Nature. Humanity, having been separated and out of personal contact with the Divine since Eden, could not handle being in the presence of the Divine. Moses was allowed to see God's backside but not his face as He passed by Moses (Exodus 33:20-23). The Divine was no longer hiding behind Nature when Elijah heard the whisper in the cave. He knew that he was in the intimate presence of the Divine. And how more intimate can you get than a whisper?

There may be times when we want to distance ourselves from that which we are actively seeking out of frustration, loneliness, or even because we feel that we've had ENOUGH. It is at this low point that we must actively pursue the intimate presence of the Spirit. What we call the Spirit is entirely up to the individual. The Spirit does not have to be religious or even Spiritual because even Atheist and Agnostics seek the spirit of Humanity and focus on progressing our global community. When we intimately embrace that inner voice we can unlock a source of nearly infinite strength. It is this intimacy that gives hope to the hopeless, strength to the weak, comfort and companionship to the lonely. By reaching beyond religion, symbols, and beliefs we can find a Source within ourselves, an intimate whisper calling out that is drowned out by all of life's worries and fears. It has always been there calling out, "What are you doing here? Come in with me."

Oh Ye of Little Faith

Marcus Borg on faith as the new requirement for salvation.

"Yet this strong emphasis on grace got transformed into a new system of conventional wisdom, not only in my own mind but, I think, in the minds of many Lutheran, and many Christians generally. The emphasis was placed upon faith rather than grace, and faith insidiously became the new requirement. Faith (most often understood as belief) is what God required, and by a lack of faith/belief one risked the peril of eternal punishment. The requirement of faith brought with it all of the anxiety and self-preoccupation that mark life in the world of conventional wisdom. Was one's faith/belief real enough, strong enough? Thus, for many of us latter-day Lutherans, the system of conventional wisdom remained. Only the content of the requirement had changed- from good works to faith." (Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, pg.79)

---

When did faith become the requirement for salvation in Christianity? A more challenging question may be why must we be judged in the first place? I believe this is tied to our perception of God as either Judge and Lawgiver or Gracious and Compassionate. Within Christianity the two are blended into one almighty that is both Judge and Compassionate. We will be graciously spared IF we follow his commands and ONLY AFTER we believe. But what if we can't believe, reason that it is a waste of time or foolish to believe? Must these unbelievers be punished just because they can't pass the litmus test of belief?

How is this gracious or compassionate? I can not believe that God would torture unbelievers in the afterlife for their inability to believe nor their choosing the wrong belief. Nor can I believe that the very same God who gave us Free Will would make such a choiceless request: "Believe or else..." How is there any freedom of choice when one of the choices is eternal damnation? Harold Kushner in his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People explains that Free Will allows us to be human. Without choices we would be like animals who follow instinct and do not make as many decisions as humans do. The biggest decision an animal might make would be choosing a fruit from a particular tree. Yet this is also guided by their senses which is driven by instinct.

This is why I do not believe in the Stick and Carrot theology of a judging God. By being offered the choice between life and death the obvious and only choice for all mankind would be life. This does not mean there is not an actual heaven or hell, although I do not believe that these places physically exist. I can not validate the existence of an afterlife anymore than anyone else can. There may be a Heaven and a Hell but my issue lies with the system of punishment and reward dished out by a God who allowed us (or created us) broken in the first place. If this were the case then God is an Unjust God. Neither the system nor this God as Judge exist in my eyes, but do not confuse this with Atheism or Agnosticism. I believe in God although I can not describe what God is. All I can say is what God can not be IF God is a loving and compassionate God.

So what does this have to do with faith? I am unable to comprehend that a loving and compassionate God would hold ANY requirements for us to share in that love (I define this sharing as salvation, being in the presence of infinite Love). Maybe I'm defining Love wrong, or maybe I'm defining God wrong. I do not know. What I do know is that if God is Love then why must we be judged and sentenced according to our beliefs? Does that mean that my inability to comprehend that God as Judge and Lawgiver would automatically sentence me to hell? Well, if it does then we're all in a lot of trouble. I hope that no one has found my words offensive since that is not my intention. I intend only to question, even if what I am questioning is considered sacred, so that I may grow in my spiritual journey.

Abraham's Test

During my research and study on the topic of God testing our faith I stumbled upon an interesting concept that completely turns the story of Abraham and the binding of Isaac completely upside down and inside out. In Karen Armstrong's In the Beginning: A New Interpretation on Genesis, Armstrong reinterprets this symbolic book by wrestling with the symbols that it contains instead of reading them literally. Genesis was never meant to be read literally since "the text points beyond itself to a reality which cannot adequately be expressed in words and concepts." (Armstrong, p.5) So what can we learn from a book of symbols, what lessons are there that may teach us about God and ourselves?

[Abraham Sacrificing Isaac, Laurent de LaHire, 1650]

---

Genesis Ch. 22 starts off with God testing his servant, Abraham, who tells no one of this test and even Isaac is left in the dark when he asks about the lamb for the burnt offering. Abraham places his son on top of the altar, takes out his knife to kill his son when he is suddenly stopped by the Divine. The Lord provides a ram for sacrifice instead and blesses Abraham after passing the test of faith showing that he feared God. The original story is viewed as a test of Abraham's faithfulness to God and reinterpreted by Christians as a foreshadowing of the perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ. But what about poor Isaac?

It is not until after Isaac and Ishmael bury their father that the writers of Genesis actually let Isaac speak again. Who's faith was actually tested on Mount Moriah, Abraham's or Isaac's? Even though Genesis references Isaac as Abraham's only son he still had Ishmael (whom the Lord also blessed). If God had let Abraham actually sacrifice Isaac, which ironically would have been a much stronger foreshadowing of God offering his only Son than the the original story, Abraham would still have descendants through Ishmael. Even though Abraham would have lost a son, Isaac would have lost his life. Furthermore, in Ch. 21 God promised Abraham that it is through Isaac's descendants that he will be blessed. The early Christian church responded through the writer of Hebrews that Abraham had faith that God would resurrect Isaac if he had been sacrificed (Hebrews 11:17-19). So if anyone's faith was being tested on that day, I believe it was Isaac's!

Armstrong brings up the fact that Isaac doesn't say a word after the events on Mount Moriah and in the very next chapter we learn of Sarah's death. Did Isaac run off after almost being sacrificed? (There are some Jewish traditions in the Midrash that speculate that Isaac did indeed run off to see his brother after the events on Mount Moriah, unfortunately I can not find them.) Abraham returning home to inform Sarah that God wanted him to sacrifice her baby boy would have been a tremendous shock to any mother, especially if Isaac did not return home with his father (Genesis 22:19). Of course this is all speculation, but we don't learn about Isaac's whereabouts until the end of chapter 24 where he was living near Beer-lahai-roi (Hagar's Well) and later settles in the Negeb (south of Judah). Where was Isaac during his parents' deaths? We can only speculate, but the point is that he moved away sometime after the disturbing event on Mount Moriah and later moved back before the introduction of Rebecca. Armstrong also points out that God is also referenced as "The Fear of Isaac" (Genesis 31:42,53). Most people would say this is a holy fear of God instead of an outright terror, but I agree with Armstrong that even though Isaac had survived Mount Moriah that he might have been scarred for life because of the event.

Ms. Armstrong concludes the chapter on Isaac by readdressing and reinterpreting God's test on Abraham's and Isaac's faith.

"Perhaps God wanted Abraham to argue with him on Mount Moriah, as he had argued for the people of Sodom. Or perhaps, seeing the consequences inflicted by his "test" upon Isaac, God came to realize that too relentless a faith can lead to fanaticism and to a lack of humanity that has permanent and damaging effects upon others." (Armstrong, Pg. 73)

Maybe God's true test on Abraham was not a matter of following his directions blindly but to test his humanity. (Or maybe Abraham was testing God's morality by forcing him to stop the sacrifice, click here) Maybe God wanted to know if Abraham still had a conscious and would stand up against injustice as he did for the people of Sodom. Abraham was bold enough to defend innocent strangers in a sinful city from God's wrath, so why not strike at the heart by having him sacrifice his son? Abraham is then torn between his two loves: his love for God, and his love for his son. Maybe Abraham thought that if he did not follow God's command he would take away any promise of descendants, maybe he believed that since God gave him Ishmael and Isaac then God would grant him another son as long as he was faithful. But at what price? Would you blindly follow the command of God even if it meant compromising your humanity to do an unjust act as killing another human being?

Maybe the lesson is that we should never forget our humanity nor lose compassion for our fellow man even if we are commanded to do so, for this blind faith may lead us down the heartless path of fanaticism. I don't believe in a God who would sadistically test mankind to sacrifice their own children, but the one I do believe in is the loving and compassionate God who is found throughout all faiths, buried beneath imagery, symbols, and anthropomorphic attributes. The true compassionate God of Abraham is the God who stopped the knife.