 I recently attended a Methodist church service where the minister spoke on the subject of obedience, claiming that it was the foundation of faith and the only way to gain access to the Holy Spirit. It struck me how much of a difference a single word can make when talking about our faith journey and how words, as much as actions, can influence our view of religion and serve to define its relevance in our lives. No discussion of words would be complete without a quick trip to the dictionary. In this case, obedience is defined as "compliance with an order, request, or law, or submission to another's authority." The minister quoted Acts 5:32, which states, "And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him." The preceding passages deal with Jesus' apostles, namely Peter and John, who were spreading the teachings of Jesus and performing many miracles of healing, much to the consternation of the local high priest and "the party of the Saducees." When Peter refers to being "witnesses to these things," he's referring to the crucification of Jesus, which he expresses as "whom you killed by hanging him on a tree." Peter is making the case that the apostles, and by extension all those who are believers, "must obey God rather than men." But at what cost does obedience come? What the minister failed to share was how Acts 5 actually begins, which is with an introduction to a man named Ananias and his wife Saphira, who had sold a piece of property and "kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the feet of the apostles' feet." Peter responds by asking "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?" He goes on to ask, "How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." At hearing his words, Ananias fell down and dead. A short while later, the wife is similarly confronted by Peter, not knowing that her husband had died, and Peter asks, "How is it you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out. Immediately she fell down at his feet and died." In both cases, Peter cites the Holy Spirit as the one to whom an injustice has been done, not for murder or adultery, or some crime against humanity for which capital punishment might be considered appropriate, but gather for the sin of not having turned over 100% of the proceeds from the sale of their property to the apostles, i.e., the church, so that it could be redistributed by Peter to those he deemed more needful. Mind you, this isn't one of Jesus' allegories where the husband and wife aren't real, but rather only symbolize the greed of mankind or man's capacity to commit sins. This is told in the historical context of the apostles' travels throughout the Holy Land. So when the minister quotes Acts 5:32 as, "...the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him," and then goes on to say that obedience is the ground on which faith is based and the only way to gain access to the Holy Spirit, while failing to mention that that same holy ground contains the bodies of those who were struck dead by the Holy Spirit for being disobedient, you have what might be deemed the key challenge of religious faith vs. purely spiritual faith: namely that the first is burdened by the inescapable weight of inconsistency and outright contradiction (God loves you, but will strike you dead if you disobey Him), while the second is true in so much as it can be experienced in the present moment through a spirit-felt connection with God, and through extension, the Holy Spirit. I can't help but find purely spiritual faith superior over the alternative and based on recent Pew Research that shows an increasing trend for individuals to identify as not religiously affiliated or "nones," I'm not alone. As much as I'd like to a part of the larger and more established religious community of faith, I find it hard, if not impossible, to do so when messages have to be so finely crafted so as to convey only the convenient parts--that which works to the advantage of the messenger--while consciously leaving out the unpleasant truths that weaken the messenger's ability to convert the listener. That's true of so many things these days: politics, news coverage, advertising, and sadly organized religion. The Course acknowledges that traditional religious beliefs interpret obedience in much the same way as laid out in Acts 5, while offering an alternative view on the topic in Chapter 11, Sec. 6, titled Waking in Redemption. T-11.6.5. Do not underestimate the power of the devotion of God's Son, nor the power the god he worships has over him. For he places himself at the altar of his god, whether it be the god he made or the God Who created him. That is why his slavery is as complete as his freedom, for he will obey only the god he accepts. The god of crucifixion demands that he crucify, and his worshippers obey. In his name they crucify themselves, believing that the power of the Son of God is born of sacrifice and pain. The God of resurrection demands nothing, for He does not will to take away. He does not require obedience, for obedience implies submission. He would only have you learn your will and follow it, not in the spirit of sacrifice and submission, but in the gladness of freedom. The Course seeks to have us replace the idea of submission and a focus on sacrifice and pain with the "God of resurrection," and the achievable goal of learning of the Will we share with God and then following His message of joy in daily practice through communion with the Holy Spirit and fellowship with our brothers and sisters in Christ. T-11.6.6. Resurrection must compel your allegiance gladly, because it is the symbol of joy. Its whole compelling power lies in the fact that it represents what you want to be. The freedom to leave behind everything that hurts you and humbles you and frightens you cannot be thrust upon you, but it can be offered you through the grace of God. And you can accept it by His grace, for God is gracious to His Son, accepting him without question as His Own. Who, then, is your own? The Father has given you all that is His, and He Himself is yours with them. Guard them in their resurrection, for otherwise you will not awake in God, safely surrounded by what is yours forever. It's through the grace of God, not for fear of Him, that we're asked to gladly offer our allegiance as a means of realizing the joy that He is in us. Allegiance, while similar to obedience, conveys a greater sense of loyalty, faithfulness, and commitment of a subordinate to a superior rather then submission through threats of withholding rewards or inflicting punishment. T-11.6.7. You will not find peace until you have removed the nails from the hands of God's Son, and taken the last thorn from his forehead. The Love of God surrounds His Son whom the god of crucifixion condemns. Teach not that I died in vain. Teach rather that I did not die by demonstrating that I live in you. For the undoing of the crucifixion of God's Son is the work of the redemption, in which everyone has a part of equal value. God does not judge His guiltless Son. Having given Himself to him, how could it be otherwise? I find it interesting that an antonym or opposite meaning for obedience is rebellion. To be disobedient isn't just to disagree with something or someone, but rather to be put into a position where one feels forced to outright reject and actively rebel against it. Seen in that context, religious obedience can be seen as an all or nothing proposition and for those who choose to "disobey" either through thoughts or actions, there aren't many options. It is this fact, in particular, that I think accounts for the rise of the nones in modern society.
I happily acknowledge that organized religion, and specifically local churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues serve an important function in both their members' lives and in the communities in which they serve. The church to which I refer in this post, and in particular, the minister whom I reference, go well beyond the norm in terms of serving the homeless and underprivileged, and I think that's much needed and highly admirable. That said, I also think it's true that if organized religion were less inclined to promote fear as a means of ensuring obedience, then religious affiliation might be on the rise instead of decline. Fortunately, with 68% of those who identify as religiously unaffiliated saying that they still believe in God or a universal spirit, a decline in church membership doesn't equate to a lack of belief in God or of faith in general, and that's good news.  We often question what our true purpose is in this world, but rarely do we ask the same of the world itself. The Abrahamic religions tell us that God created the world expressly for the benefit of man. However, the Course tells a much different story then what is popularly believed. Through various lessons in the Workbook, including lesson 64, we learn that we--both you and I--created the illusion of the world as a means of escaping direct contact with God's love. We do this through the use of the body, which is also an illusion whose sole function is to make us forget our true purpose. By choosing to take on a physical appearance we make temptation seem possible and in so doing abandon God and all His creations in our mind. Further, we are told that nothing the body’s eyes seem to see can be anything but a form of temptation, since this was the purpose of the body itself. Why, you might ask, would we the children of God, choose to remove ourselves collectively from direct contact with God's love in the first place? The Course tells us that in creating us, God gave us all of Himself by extending Himself through us. If God is Love, then we are Love, as well. If God is eternal, then we too are eternal. In the mind of God, which is where the Course tells us we truly exist in reality, all of His creations are the same, equal, One. So being created by God and of God and like God in every way, the Course says there arose "a tiny mad idea" among the children of God, which resulted in what I refer in another section of this site as the One Game. Essentially, we had everything as God created us because we literally are everything (more on that later), everything that is except our own creator. And in order to imagine a world in which we are our own creator, a "self-made man" as the saying goes, we needed to remove the memory of our true creation and make a world were we believed we could hide from God. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit has another use for all the illusions we've made, and therefore sees another purpose in them. To the Holy Spirit, the world is a place where we learn to forgive ourselves for what we mistakenly believe to be our unforgivable sins against God, which all have at their root our choosing to imagine that we have forgotten Him. In this perception, the physical appearance of temptation is transformed into an opportunity for the spiritual recognition of salvation, which simply entails our dedicating our life purpose to remembering our true relationship with God. The Course assures us that our only function in this world is given to each of us by God. It's only the arrogance of the ego that leads us to question this, and only the fear of the ego that induces us to regard ourselves as unworthy of the task God assigned to us. No less than the world’s salvation awaits our acceptance of forgiveness, because through it we escape from all illusions, and the imagined temptations that accompany them. By the way, it's only by fulfilling this function that you can truly be happy, because your function is to be happy by using the means by which happiness becomes inevitable. There is no other way, no matter how many things we buy, or people we impress, or times we change our appearance. Therefore, every time you choose whether or not to fulfill your God-given function, you are really choosing whether or not to be happy. So how do you put this into daily practice? You can start by reminding yourself throughout the day that every decision you make will lead to either happiness or unhappiness. Can such a simple decision really be difficult to make? When temptation arises, as it most certainly will, the Course asks us to remember these thoughts: Let me not forget my function. I recently read the following thought-provoking media release: "A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind. The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature. ‘The Cognition, Religion and Theology Project’ led by Dr Justin Barrett, from the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University, drew on research from a range of disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. They directed an international body of researchers conducting studies in 20 different countries that represented both traditionally religious and atheist societies."  The findings are due to be published in two separate books by psychologist Dr Barrett in Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology and Born Believers: The Science of Childhood Religion. Dr. Barrett's book is the eighth title published in the Templeton Science and Religion Series, in which scientists from a wide range of fields distill their experience and knowledge into brief tours of their respective specialties. The entire series can be found on the Templeton site and purchased on Amazon. So what exactly is cognitive science and how does it apply to religion? I found this description on the Amazon page for the book cited above: "Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary study of minds and mental activity, and as such, it addresses a fundamental feature of what it is to be human. Further, in so far as religious traditions concern ideas and beliefs about the nature of humans, the nature of the world, and the nature of the divine, cognitive science can contribute both directly and indirectly to these theological concerns. Barrett shows how direct contributions come from the growing area called cognitive science of religion (CSR), which investigates how human cognitive systems inform and constrain religious thought, experience, and expression. CSR attempts to provide answers to questions such as: Why it is that humans tend to be religious? And why are certain ideas (e.g. the possibility of an afterlife) so cross-culturally recurrent?"
Some findings of the Cognition, Religion and Theology Project:
I found the second series of experiments that demonstrate that people are natural 'dualist," most interesting. This dualistic world view, according to the research, makes it easier for us to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body, which lies at the heart of all religions and the belief in a higher power. That does, however, put us at odds with mainstream scientific thought on the mind/body connection. I recently watched Unbelievers, a documentary featuring Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss as they travel the world proselytizing the power of science while professing their absolute disdain for any belief in God. At one point in the movie, Dawkins states that he refuses to debate an evangelical, implying that such persons are so unreasonable in their beliefs and so unwilling to consider alternative perspectives, that they are simply not worth engaging in conversation. It struck me how much like the evangelicals Dawkins really is in his own intractable views of the world. Project Director Dr Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, said: ‘This project does not set out to prove god or gods exist. Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact. If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies. Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.’ Project Co-Director Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford’s Ian Ramsey Centre, said: ‘This project suggests that religion is not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf. We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies. This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.’ From a Coursian perspective, we innately believe in the existence of a higher power, or God, because we were created by God and are, in fact, a part of His being, which we can never change regardless of how much as we may attempt to cover up or suppress that connection with our materialistic, hedonistic tendencies. We chose to follow the ways of the ego when we decided to forget our creation and become the rulers of our own tiny kingdoms, but the call of God's love for us is constant and His presence can be realized if we are only willing to penetrate the veils of self-imposed deception that we've placed before our mind's eye to block the view of the way home. Source: Oxford University, 2017  I attended a funeral recently, my third in less than a year. Three guys, all around my age. One took his own life, another may have too, no one really knows for sure, and the last dead of a heart attack. It gives one pause, especially considering that they were all in their late 40s and early 50s. I also had the pleasure of attending the joyous wedding of some friends in their early 30s a few months back, but the ratio of weddings to funerals has flipped since the days of my youth and it now appears that a disturbing trend is taking shape far sooner then I had previously imagined. When I was a boy, birthday parties served as the key communal celebration for me and my friends. These photo-ready gatherings of friends, family, and classmates were filled with colorful balloons, pointed hats, and at least two flavors of ice cream. And no birthday would have been complete without a candle-laden cake featuring my name oddly scrawled in colored icing. Not until the final candle was extinguished would I be able to receive the many gifts that been set aside for me or realize the fulfillment of my secret wish. Later in life, after my school days had pasted and I'd experienced some of the challenges of making my own way in the world, the gathering of old and new friends, workmates, and soon to be relatives took place in the form of a wedding. My 20s and 30s found me checking wedding registries, attending gender-restricted wedding parties where the Vegas Rule was often invoked, and in some cases, even making travel arrangements to distant destinations, all in the name of kinship, friendship, and everlasting love. These gatherings, like the birthdays of my youth, were joyful affairs, made even more so with the addition of an open bar and live band. I attended my share of weddings during this period of my life, playing the roles of brother, best man, guest and groom. Passing into my 40s and 50s, birthdays became less of a celebration than a reluctant ritual, and weddings lost their luster as friends ventured into the sacred bonds of matrimony for the second or third time. Which brings me back to the funeral I attended today for a former co-worker who was living alone at the time of his passing. We weren't good friends, and in fact, hadn't spoken in many years, but as is often the case in such situations, I attended as a show of support for his family and as a way to address deeply felt, but rarely examined emotions relating to my own mortality. I believe that death is a transition from one phase of life to another. That belief was reinforced in the program that was shared during the service, which stated that my friend had traveled from his mortal life to his eternal life. I found comfort in those words, and apparently, I'm not alone. A study recently conducted in 23 countries found that over 50 percent of individuals polled believe in an afterlife. In the United States, less than 40 percent believed in both heaven and hell, while nearly a quarter of all those polled don't believe in heaven or hell. It was a Catholic service, so there were many mentions of Christ having dead for our sins and how my friend, who was a devout Catholic, had no doubt been accepted into heaven through the redemptive power of faith and the absolution of sins through baptism and confession. Not being Catholic myself, I was able to appreciate what the priest was conveying to the audience about my friend's present state of being, even though my personal beliefs vary from those being expressed. Funerals aren't a time to make judgements on the correctness of religious or spiritual beliefs, but rather to respect the beliefs of all faiths as they are practiced by those whose life we have gathered to celebrate. That's true for both weddings and funerals, and for everyday life. I may be facing a future filled with more funerals than birthday parties and weddings, but I do so with the comfort of knowing that when my own final celebration comes, it will be attended by a lifetime worth of loved ones and friends. If there's any upside to attending the funerals of friends, it must be to daily appreciate the life we're living now and to honor those who we are blessed to have joined us in the journey.  I recently dreamt that I was passing through the lobby of a building when a priest took me aside and asked me to look at a young couple that was outside on the other side of a glass wall. I recognized the couple, who appeared to be arguing about a sports car. I went outside—presumably to get a closer look—and once in the street I saw a tidal flood of water coming towards me so I ran away from the advancing waters. As I ran I came upon a building that had an outside staircase, like a motel. I could see other people climbing the stairs and entering a door to a hallway on an upper floor. I had a strong desire to do the same. When I entered the hallway the inside seemed very familiar. It felt like a place of learning and I had the sense that I had been here before. I have this type of dream often: A series of seemingly unrelated events occur that lead me to a classroom-like setting, at which point the dream ends or I simply forget what it was I was meant to learn. Each time I'm surprised that it ends that way, but upon waking it makes sense because I remember the previous dreams of the same nature. This one features a priest, a young couple, a sports car, a glass wall and a flood. What would Freud make of that odd mix of disparate elements? Perhaps I was meant to learn something relating to the articles I've been reading about the new Pope and his unusual, yet welcomed, focus on serving the needs of the poorest among us. Maybe the couple represents humanity in the form of a man and a woman, the sports car serves a symbol of the struggle between our material and spiritual impulses, the glass wall is the imagined separation I place between myself the needs of others and the flood represents the force of love and compassion that is ever-ready to sweep me away at any moment, should I be willing to allow my worldly desires be carried away by the overwhelming and all-encompassing love and compassion of Christ's love for us. Or maybe on a more basic level it's simply a reminder that everything about this human existence is a lesson and we should approach every situation, no matter how seemingly odd or mundane, as an opportunity to both teach and learn something important about ourselves and those with which we interact. The Course has an inspiring way of putting it. (M-3.2) "The simplest level of teaching appears to be quite superficial. It consists of what seem to be very casual encounters; a “chance” meeting of two apparent strangers in an elevator, a child who is not looking where he is going running into an adult “by chance,” two students “happening” to walk home together. These are not chance encounters. Each of them has the potential for becoming a teaching-learning situation. Perhaps the seeming strangers in the elevator will smile to one another; perhaps the adult will not scold the child for bumping into him; perhaps the students will become friends. Even at the level of the most casual encounter, it is possible for two people to lose sight of separate interests, if only for a moment. That moment will be enough. Salvation has come." (M-3.2) So whatever my sleeping dream was meant to convey, it's important to remember that the waking dream that we're currently experiencing is filled with daily opportunities to experience the love of God through the most seemingly mundane encounters with our fellow children of God, regardless of their age, race, religion, or any other identifying characteristic because One is One no matter how you slice it. Sweet dreams.
|
