I saw Religulous over the weekend, a very funny and challenging new movie from Bill Maher skewering various forms of religious expression. Maher is the former host of politically incorrect on Comedy Central which is a good description for this movie. I can't think of too many religious groups who would be left un-offended. Maher has nothing good to say about organized religion although he had nothing at all to say about that nebulous alternative to religion called spirituality.
His primary targets are the fundamentalist branches of Christianity, Orthodox Judaism and Islam in general with a brief shot at the weirdness known as Scientology. He also takes on the Mormons who are in a category of their own. His bottom line is that we shouldn’t be looking for ways to foster religious tolerance. Instead we should be finding ways to marginalize religion and expose the irrational, anti-intellectual, violent, xenophobic, misogynistic and misanthropic tendencies of the religions he is going after.
I think Bill Maher is one of the funniest and most intelligent satirists working today and parts of the movie were hilarious. At one point he is interviewing a "reformed" gay evangelical who insists that no one is “born gay” and Maher quips; “have you ever met little Richard?” Perhaps the best moment was his interview with father Reginald Foster, an American priest serving as the Vatican Latin expert. Father Foster refuses to wear priestly garb and comes across as a happy heretic with his progressive views on various topics. Another high point was watching the former director of the Vatican observatory, Jesuit priest George Coyne, make mincemeat of the claims of creationists.
Maher makes no claim of being fair and balanced. He offers no hint of a middle ground or opposing viewpoint. That task is left to others. This movie is a polemic; his concluding words are “religion must die in order for mankind to live.” I am inclined to agree to the extent that the religion he is talking about is the kind of fundamentalism that longs for the violent end times of Revelation or is bent on world conquest and domination violently or otherwise.
The biggest problem with the movie is that it doesn’t address the issue of why religion was invented in the first place. Human beings have always been looking for answers to ultimate questions and even if there are no answers, we need ways to talk about those questions. The movie does a great job of demonstrating how dysfunctional certain religious institutions have become but offers no alternative for dealing with the big questions. Science doesn’t have all the answers either so where to from here?
One suggestion might be to allow ourselves to evolve beyond the limitations of both religion and spirituality. The fact that humankind is outgrowing the magical and supernatural doesn’t mean an end to mystery and awe. The wonders of consciousness cannot be explained by mere reduction to biological components. Evolution is demonstrating an emerging level of complexity greater than the sum total of its parts that cannot be explained by random chance.
I would imagine that many people watching this movie might feel a bit defensive. Indeed, there are many apologists responding to Maher with varying degrees of alarm and outrage. The main reason that this movie did not have me squirming is because I do not identify with any of the religious labels being targeted. So what am I you might ask? I am an integral, evolutionary humanist. Good luck with that one Bill.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Neo-Idolatry and the Golden Calf of Post Modernism
In the October issue of our church newsletter which went to print the second week in September, I commented on the economic issues that were confronting us. I reprint it here more or less as a lead in to an episode of the Colbert Report in which Stephen Colbert says it better (and funnier) than I ever could. His comments follow the failure of the House to pass the so called "bailout" on September 29th and how we need to have faith... in "the Market." Check it out here... it's a hoot and we all need a bit of that:
Talking about the economy has become a national preoccupation. It is remarkable how much power we attribute to this mysterious entity by the way we think and talk about it, so much so that the state of the economy now has the power to determine the state of our collective consciousness. Our mood goes up and down like a roller coaster along with the Dow and the price of oil. Could it be that the way our nation regards the economy has become a form of neo-idolatry, the golden calf of post-modernism, a god like being unto itself?
In the March 1999 issue of The Atlantic, Harvard Theology Professor Harvey Cox wrote an article entitled; “The Market as God” in which he observed that there are compelling similarities between the ways that economists talk about “The Market” and theologians talk about God: “…there lies embedded in the business pages an entire theology, which is comparable in scope if not in profundity to that of Thomas Aquinas or Karl Barth.” The entire article can be found here: www.theatlantic.com/doc/199903/market-god
But just because economists are starting to sound like theologians doesn’t mean we have to buy into their idolatry. This year, our annual seven week fall series will be based on the book Spiritual Economics: The Principles and Process of True Prosperity by Eric Butterworth. This is a timely topic. In his typically clear and direct fashion, Eric Butterworth tells us:
“You are not responsible for what is said in the Wall Street Journal or what comes out of Washington in the form of economic indicators, but you are very much responsible for what you think about these things. You cannot afford to let the so-called experts decide how you are going to think and feel.”
True prosperity is measured by the state of our consciousness not the state of our bank accounts. Eric Butterworth brings a refreshing and much needed perspective to the subject that is free from magical thinking and dogmatic attitudes about manifesting and tithing. Most importantly, he stays focused on the primary aim of all of our teachings which is to show us how to become self liberated, fully functioning human beings instead of using spirituality to justify egocentricity and materialism.
In his forward to the 1998 edition of Spiritual Economics, David F. Miller, the former vice chairman and COO of the J.C. Penny Company Inc. writes: “Advancements in science, art, and indeed economics, all arise from the same source, the creative mind that taps into the inner Self and eventually finds expression in our actions.”
Our task as human beings is to awaken to the presence of that creative mind and learn how to draw upon the strength and wisdom of our true Self as we navigate the inevitable ups and downs of the fullness of life which includes the physical world and the karmic effects of our own actions and those of others. Spiritual economics is about taking responsibility for our own consciousness in order to find greater freedom and a sense of confidence (dare I say hope?) that humankind is up to any challenge that we may encounter.
Talking about the economy has become a national preoccupation. It is remarkable how much power we attribute to this mysterious entity by the way we think and talk about it, so much so that the state of the economy now has the power to determine the state of our collective consciousness. Our mood goes up and down like a roller coaster along with the Dow and the price of oil. Could it be that the way our nation regards the economy has become a form of neo-idolatry, the golden calf of post-modernism, a god like being unto itself?
In the March 1999 issue of The Atlantic, Harvard Theology Professor Harvey Cox wrote an article entitled; “The Market as God” in which he observed that there are compelling similarities between the ways that economists talk about “The Market” and theologians talk about God: “…there lies embedded in the business pages an entire theology, which is comparable in scope if not in profundity to that of Thomas Aquinas or Karl Barth.” The entire article can be found here: www.theatlantic.com/doc/199903/market-god
But just because economists are starting to sound like theologians doesn’t mean we have to buy into their idolatry. This year, our annual seven week fall series will be based on the book Spiritual Economics: The Principles and Process of True Prosperity by Eric Butterworth. This is a timely topic. In his typically clear and direct fashion, Eric Butterworth tells us:
“You are not responsible for what is said in the Wall Street Journal or what comes out of Washington in the form of economic indicators, but you are very much responsible for what you think about these things. You cannot afford to let the so-called experts decide how you are going to think and feel.”
True prosperity is measured by the state of our consciousness not the state of our bank accounts. Eric Butterworth brings a refreshing and much needed perspective to the subject that is free from magical thinking and dogmatic attitudes about manifesting and tithing. Most importantly, he stays focused on the primary aim of all of our teachings which is to show us how to become self liberated, fully functioning human beings instead of using spirituality to justify egocentricity and materialism.
In his forward to the 1998 edition of Spiritual Economics, David F. Miller, the former vice chairman and COO of the J.C. Penny Company Inc. writes: “Advancements in science, art, and indeed economics, all arise from the same source, the creative mind that taps into the inner Self and eventually finds expression in our actions.”
Our task as human beings is to awaken to the presence of that creative mind and learn how to draw upon the strength and wisdom of our true Self as we navigate the inevitable ups and downs of the fullness of life which includes the physical world and the karmic effects of our own actions and those of others. Spiritual economics is about taking responsibility for our own consciousness in order to find greater freedom and a sense of confidence (dare I say hope?) that humankind is up to any challenge that we may encounter.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
On a Collision Course With the Dark Ages
As if we didn’t have enough to worry about, now we are supposed lose sleep wondering whether a super powerful particle collider in Switzerland might produce a microscopic black hole that will swallow the earth. Seriously. According to msn.com, a lawsuit has been filed to shut the project down which started this week. It was brought by Walter Wagner, a former radiation safety officer with a law degree. Now there’s a dangerous combination.
Despite the outcry, these are not mad scientists bent on destroying the world. No, they have a much more ambitious purpose; they want to re-create the Big Bang in order to find God, or at least something that has been nick named the “God particle.” The technical and less colorful name is a “Higgs Boson” and it might be the key to the mysteries of the universe.
Yes, there is a chance they could produce a mini-black hole, but the experts assure us that the little guys are very unstable and will simply blink out of existence as soon as they appear. Too bad. Sounds like a waste of a perfectly good black hole. Considering the time and money being invested, if they don’t find God we should at least get something out of the deal even if it is a massively destructive quantum singularity. Assuming we could control it, we could use it to suck down garbage and our landfill problems would be solved forever. A green black hole, the mind boggles.
I only wish it were happening at the Fermilab collider outside my old hometown of Geneva, Illinois. By God, if anyone is going to find God, they should be American or at least from a country that wears religion on its collective sleeve instead of those European secular humanists. And that probably explains why the project is happening in Geneva, Switzerland instead of Geneva, Illinois.
If our leadership edge in science and technology seems to be slipping, it may have something to do with a subtle but discernible disdain for reason and science in this country. When the powers that be think it would be great to teach creationism alongside science in our classrooms, we are on a collision course with the dark ages.
It doesn’t have to be that way, we can alter our course but it will take a willingness to expand our concept of God beyond the mercurial anthropomorphic guy in the sky who sends hurricanes to destroy cities that have gay pride parades. Shallow religion offers easy answers to ultimate questions which results in leaders who think they have a direct pipeline to the will of God.
I prefer a deep religion that isn’t afraid of what we might discover as we tackle the ultimate questions that seem beyond our capacity to answer right now. God particles, black holes and mystery are all part of the plan and we have the ingenuity to rise to the challenge of the big questions. After all, we were created in the image and likeness of God so naturally we are going to discover and express those qualities if we give it a chance. That’s where I am placing my faith.
Despite the outcry, these are not mad scientists bent on destroying the world. No, they have a much more ambitious purpose; they want to re-create the Big Bang in order to find God, or at least something that has been nick named the “God particle.” The technical and less colorful name is a “Higgs Boson” and it might be the key to the mysteries of the universe.
Yes, there is a chance they could produce a mini-black hole, but the experts assure us that the little guys are very unstable and will simply blink out of existence as soon as they appear. Too bad. Sounds like a waste of a perfectly good black hole. Considering the time and money being invested, if they don’t find God we should at least get something out of the deal even if it is a massively destructive quantum singularity. Assuming we could control it, we could use it to suck down garbage and our landfill problems would be solved forever. A green black hole, the mind boggles.
I only wish it were happening at the Fermilab collider outside my old hometown of Geneva, Illinois. By God, if anyone is going to find God, they should be American or at least from a country that wears religion on its collective sleeve instead of those European secular humanists. And that probably explains why the project is happening in Geneva, Switzerland instead of Geneva, Illinois.
If our leadership edge in science and technology seems to be slipping, it may have something to do with a subtle but discernible disdain for reason and science in this country. When the powers that be think it would be great to teach creationism alongside science in our classrooms, we are on a collision course with the dark ages.
It doesn’t have to be that way, we can alter our course but it will take a willingness to expand our concept of God beyond the mercurial anthropomorphic guy in the sky who sends hurricanes to destroy cities that have gay pride parades. Shallow religion offers easy answers to ultimate questions which results in leaders who think they have a direct pipeline to the will of God.
I prefer a deep religion that isn’t afraid of what we might discover as we tackle the ultimate questions that seem beyond our capacity to answer right now. God particles, black holes and mystery are all part of the plan and we have the ingenuity to rise to the challenge of the big questions. After all, we were created in the image and likeness of God so naturally we are going to discover and express those qualities if we give it a chance. That’s where I am placing my faith.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Homophobia and Protection of Marriage
The call has gone out; arise oh righteous ones and come to the aid of Proposition 8 in order to stamp out the threat to marriage and halt the moral decline of our country, or at least the state of California. Proposition 8 is an effort to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Much of the support for it is based on religious arguments that appeal to the Bible and God’s divine plan.
Supporters of Proposition 8 who rely on religious arguments create an interesting conundrum. If the government is required to ban same sex marriages because God and the Bible mandates it, then any such legislation or constitutional amendment will constitute an establishment of religion contrary to the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The only reason that government should be involved in the issue of marriage at all is in the event of dissolution to ensure the orderly disposition of property and money and to make sure that the rights of children are protected. The gender of the married couple is irrelevant to these considerations. For a government to define who can be married or create separate but equal classifications called marriage and domestic partnership requires some rational basis for doing so beyond tradition or religious concerns.
That’s the legal argument. After all, I’m still a lawyer. However, the larger issues go beyond legalities. Supporters of Proposition 8 ultimately resort to the language of morality which suggests that they want this to function as a referendum on the issue of homosexuality in general. Is it ok, sinful, immoral or just plain icky? You decide. Most of the arguments in support of sinful and immoral are based on the Bible.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment. Try formulating a non-Biblical argument against homosexuality that doesn’t apply equally to heterosexual conduct. If you say that homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn’t lead to pro-creation, then heterosexuals who are childless are unnatural as well. Better root them out too while we are at it or at least pass a law to make sure they return to doing only what comes “naturally” or at least adopting a child to keep up appearances.
Ok, but what about the immorality in those gay pride parades, all the leather and butt cheeks… shocking! Watch any cable TV lately? Heterosexual pop-culture is doing more to sexualize our society than anything a neighborhood parade could hope to do, if indeed that is the agenda. By the way, I have several gay and lesbian friends and I asked them to show me the homosexual agenda that I hear so many folks worried about. If there is such a thing, I haven’t seen it yet. Must be one of them there stealth agendas, you know… a secret conspiracy!! And as for those who object to homosexuality because its “icky”, all I can say is curb your imagination and grow up.
They say hindsight is 20/20, especially when it comes to moral outrage. When we look backwards in time we have no problem identifying customs and practices that were given the stamp of moral approval that would be considered immoral and outrageous today. Slavery, Native American genocide, denying women voting and property rights and child labor are the obvious ones, all justified by the prevailing religious authorities of the day.
One hundred years from now, what will that same hindsight reveal? Discrimination and hatred based on a person’s sexual orientation will certainly leave our descendants shaking their heads and saying “what were they thinking?” But even worse would be the perception that we were lacking any kind of a moral compass as we focused on the sexuality of consenting adults and ignored the very real moral evils of poverty, ignorance, disease, government corruption, environmental degradation and ethnic genocide.
There are many expressions of family life and no one form is stronger than another. The key ingredients are unconditional love and a commitment to selfless service. Government and churches cannot protect marriage by legislation or constitutional amendments. The best way to protect marriage is to provide support and encouragement to couples, regardless of gender, who are ready to express such a high level of commitment to each other.
Supporters of Proposition 8 who rely on religious arguments create an interesting conundrum. If the government is required to ban same sex marriages because God and the Bible mandates it, then any such legislation or constitutional amendment will constitute an establishment of religion contrary to the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The only reason that government should be involved in the issue of marriage at all is in the event of dissolution to ensure the orderly disposition of property and money and to make sure that the rights of children are protected. The gender of the married couple is irrelevant to these considerations. For a government to define who can be married or create separate but equal classifications called marriage and domestic partnership requires some rational basis for doing so beyond tradition or religious concerns.
That’s the legal argument. After all, I’m still a lawyer. However, the larger issues go beyond legalities. Supporters of Proposition 8 ultimately resort to the language of morality which suggests that they want this to function as a referendum on the issue of homosexuality in general. Is it ok, sinful, immoral or just plain icky? You decide. Most of the arguments in support of sinful and immoral are based on the Bible.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment. Try formulating a non-Biblical argument against homosexuality that doesn’t apply equally to heterosexual conduct. If you say that homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn’t lead to pro-creation, then heterosexuals who are childless are unnatural as well. Better root them out too while we are at it or at least pass a law to make sure they return to doing only what comes “naturally” or at least adopting a child to keep up appearances.
Ok, but what about the immorality in those gay pride parades, all the leather and butt cheeks… shocking! Watch any cable TV lately? Heterosexual pop-culture is doing more to sexualize our society than anything a neighborhood parade could hope to do, if indeed that is the agenda. By the way, I have several gay and lesbian friends and I asked them to show me the homosexual agenda that I hear so many folks worried about. If there is such a thing, I haven’t seen it yet. Must be one of them there stealth agendas, you know… a secret conspiracy!! And as for those who object to homosexuality because its “icky”, all I can say is curb your imagination and grow up.
They say hindsight is 20/20, especially when it comes to moral outrage. When we look backwards in time we have no problem identifying customs and practices that were given the stamp of moral approval that would be considered immoral and outrageous today. Slavery, Native American genocide, denying women voting and property rights and child labor are the obvious ones, all justified by the prevailing religious authorities of the day.
One hundred years from now, what will that same hindsight reveal? Discrimination and hatred based on a person’s sexual orientation will certainly leave our descendants shaking their heads and saying “what were they thinking?” But even worse would be the perception that we were lacking any kind of a moral compass as we focused on the sexuality of consenting adults and ignored the very real moral evils of poverty, ignorance, disease, government corruption, environmental degradation and ethnic genocide.
There are many expressions of family life and no one form is stronger than another. The key ingredients are unconditional love and a commitment to selfless service. Government and churches cannot protect marriage by legislation or constitutional amendments. The best way to protect marriage is to provide support and encouragement to couples, regardless of gender, who are ready to express such a high level of commitment to each other.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Acts of God?
People who believe in the Biblical end times must be putting their affairs in order and getting ready for the rapture. First the cyclone in Myanmar with over 30,000 dead and counting. Then over the weekend, tornados in the Midwest killed 21. Monday we heard about the big earthquake centered in Chengdu China. The initial death toll is 12,000 and rising.
Insurance policies used to refer to these kinds of events as acts of God which is an insult to any concept of the Divine that I would choose to have. The acts of God are the people digging through the rubble, providing food and shelter and donating to support relief efforts. Even so, human ego adds to the misery as the totalitarian government in Myanmar tells the world that it values isolation and control even if it costs the lives of its citizens.
If there is a judgment day, it is now as we watch the most effective relief efforts being made by Buddhist monks, the same monks who brought non-violent protest in support of democratic reforms and social justice. I wonder what the neo-atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have to say about this interplay between the spiritual and secular worlds.
Insurance policies used to refer to these kinds of events as acts of God which is an insult to any concept of the Divine that I would choose to have. The acts of God are the people digging through the rubble, providing food and shelter and donating to support relief efforts. Even so, human ego adds to the misery as the totalitarian government in Myanmar tells the world that it values isolation and control even if it costs the lives of its citizens.
If there is a judgment day, it is now as we watch the most effective relief efforts being made by Buddhist monks, the same monks who brought non-violent protest in support of democratic reforms and social justice. I wonder what the neo-atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have to say about this interplay between the spiritual and secular worlds.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
To Some, It’s Still Evilution
One of the highlights of our recent trip to Chicago (after celebrating my father’s 90th birthday) was a trip to the Field Museum of Natural History down on the lakefront. I couldn’t remember the last time I had been there but it was probably more than 30 years ago when I was still living in the Chicago area with my parents.
The Field Museum is renowned for its extensive fossil collections, especially the Dinosaurs, including Sue, the worlds largest, most famous and most complete T. rex. But instead of displaying the collection like a bunch of exhibits behind glass as I recalled from my childhood, they are now part of an interactive journey through time called The Evolving Planet.
You enter the exhibit beginning with planet earth 4.5 billion years ago and then walk through the various eras, epochs and periods all the way up to the present day. Each step is illustrated with fossils, dioramas, and short movies summarizing the information and highlighting dozens of scientists whose life work is on display. There are six major extinctions and several cycles of ice ages. We spent over five hours taking it all in.
A portion of the exhibit was devoted to the work of Charles Darwin whose name is synonymous with evolution. And ever since Darwin wrote Origin of Species, evolution has been under attack by Biblical fundamentalists. They tried to prevent evolution from being taught in our schools and failed. They switched tactics and offered their own “theory” of creationism and its latest incarnation, intelligent design insisting that these teachings are of equal stature with the “theory” of evolution and should be taught in our schools.
As I learned at the Field Museum, evolution isn’t just one theory among others; it is one of the most strongly substantiated theories in modern science. It’s the only scientifically accepted theory that both explains the amazing diversity of life on Earth today—and provides a concrete explanation for why this diversity has changed throughout history. I have never viewed evolution as a threat or contradiction to the idea that there is intelligence in the form of principle within it.
Later on in his life, Charles Darwin is quoted as saying; "When I wrote The Origin of Species, my faith in God was as strong as that of a bishop." According to Darwin Biographer James Moore, Darwin wants to convince you in this book that God has established laws of nature on Earth, as in the heavens, and these laws produce the forms of life that we observe. And the principal cause of this for Darwin is what he calls natural selection.
Evolution is perfectly compatible with principle, intelligence and cause. No one suggests that it is a random and meaningless process. That would be a philosophical argument not a scientific conclusion. Even neo-atheist Richard Dawkins, truly an expert in the field of evolution, doesn’t call it a random process. He objects to the idea of a mythical supernatural god with human attributes who manipulates the phenomenal world.
The evolution/creationist debate is far from over. Creationists continue to attempt to undermine the work of science because it contradicts their literal reading of Genesis. I say let God out of the box and see the magnificence and scope of creation through open and wondering eyes. That was my experience at the Field Museum and I can't wait to go back! Check out these resources for more information.
For a virtual tour of the Field Museum exhibit: http://www.fieldmuseum.org/evolvingplanet/
For more on Darwin see “Evolution and Wonder; Understanding Charles Darwin” http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/index.shtml
The Field Museum is renowned for its extensive fossil collections, especially the Dinosaurs, including Sue, the worlds largest, most famous and most complete T. rex. But instead of displaying the collection like a bunch of exhibits behind glass as I recalled from my childhood, they are now part of an interactive journey through time called The Evolving Planet.
You enter the exhibit beginning with planet earth 4.5 billion years ago and then walk through the various eras, epochs and periods all the way up to the present day. Each step is illustrated with fossils, dioramas, and short movies summarizing the information and highlighting dozens of scientists whose life work is on display. There are six major extinctions and several cycles of ice ages. We spent over five hours taking it all in.
A portion of the exhibit was devoted to the work of Charles Darwin whose name is synonymous with evolution. And ever since Darwin wrote Origin of Species, evolution has been under attack by Biblical fundamentalists. They tried to prevent evolution from being taught in our schools and failed. They switched tactics and offered their own “theory” of creationism and its latest incarnation, intelligent design insisting that these teachings are of equal stature with the “theory” of evolution and should be taught in our schools.
As I learned at the Field Museum, evolution isn’t just one theory among others; it is one of the most strongly substantiated theories in modern science. It’s the only scientifically accepted theory that both explains the amazing diversity of life on Earth today—and provides a concrete explanation for why this diversity has changed throughout history. I have never viewed evolution as a threat or contradiction to the idea that there is intelligence in the form of principle within it.
Later on in his life, Charles Darwin is quoted as saying; "When I wrote The Origin of Species, my faith in God was as strong as that of a bishop." According to Darwin Biographer James Moore, Darwin wants to convince you in this book that God has established laws of nature on Earth, as in the heavens, and these laws produce the forms of life that we observe. And the principal cause of this for Darwin is what he calls natural selection.
Evolution is perfectly compatible with principle, intelligence and cause. No one suggests that it is a random and meaningless process. That would be a philosophical argument not a scientific conclusion. Even neo-atheist Richard Dawkins, truly an expert in the field of evolution, doesn’t call it a random process. He objects to the idea of a mythical supernatural god with human attributes who manipulates the phenomenal world.
The evolution/creationist debate is far from over. Creationists continue to attempt to undermine the work of science because it contradicts their literal reading of Genesis. I say let God out of the box and see the magnificence and scope of creation through open and wondering eyes. That was my experience at the Field Museum and I can't wait to go back! Check out these resources for more information.
For a virtual tour of the Field Museum exhibit: http://www.fieldmuseum.org/evolvingplanet/
For more on Darwin see “Evolution and Wonder; Understanding Charles Darwin” http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/index.shtml
Monday, March 17, 2008
Welcome to Reason and Spirit
The time has come to join the blogosphere. There just doesn’t seem to be enough time on Sunday or enough space in the newsletter to talk about all of the things of interest in the world. Here, I can write to my hearts content on a wide variety of subjects. Book reviews, current events, movies, TV, ethics, theology, integral theory, the Bible, comparative religion… the possibilities are endless. And the best part about it is that it is interactive. Questions and comments are a part of the process and that is how ideas grow.
The most difficult thing about getting started was coming up with a name. Something short, easy to remember and not over used that captures the essence of what we are talking about. Reason and Spirit speaks to a pre-occupation that I have had for most of my adult life; how to make sense of existence and our place in the cosmos.
So far, the only two things that have provided any illumination have been the faculty of reason and intuitive insights I attribute to that which we call Spirit. Hence, Reason and Spirit. For those of you who think that perhaps Spirit should come first (like my wife Karen) it is a simple matter of alphabetical order not value ranking.
Unity co-founders Charles and Myrtle Fillmore were living examples of the dynamic interplay of reason and spirit. They combined critical thinking and mystical wisdom in a creative way that has allowed us to reframe our Christian heritage and embrace the truth teachings of other traditions. It’s an idea that has started to catch on.
In January we talked about the changes that have been taking place within Evangelical Christianity. Increased dialogue with other faiths, emphasis on social justice, responsibility for the ecosystem and renewing our commitment to eradicating hunger, poverty and ignorance are the focus of this movement that has been called the emerging church. Two great examples can be found here, www.deepshift.org and here, www.sojourners.com . The conversation has started, who wants to be a part of it?
The most difficult thing about getting started was coming up with a name. Something short, easy to remember and not over used that captures the essence of what we are talking about. Reason and Spirit speaks to a pre-occupation that I have had for most of my adult life; how to make sense of existence and our place in the cosmos.
So far, the only two things that have provided any illumination have been the faculty of reason and intuitive insights I attribute to that which we call Spirit. Hence, Reason and Spirit. For those of you who think that perhaps Spirit should come first (like my wife Karen) it is a simple matter of alphabetical order not value ranking.
Unity co-founders Charles and Myrtle Fillmore were living examples of the dynamic interplay of reason and spirit. They combined critical thinking and mystical wisdom in a creative way that has allowed us to reframe our Christian heritage and embrace the truth teachings of other traditions. It’s an idea that has started to catch on.
In January we talked about the changes that have been taking place within Evangelical Christianity. Increased dialogue with other faiths, emphasis on social justice, responsibility for the ecosystem and renewing our commitment to eradicating hunger, poverty and ignorance are the focus of this movement that has been called the emerging church. Two great examples can be found here, www.deepshift.org and here, www.sojourners.com . The conversation has started, who wants to be a part of it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)