![]() 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. 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 |
Categories
All
Interesting NewsHighly Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers
"Love thy neighbor" is preached from many a pulpit. But new research from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that the highly religious are less motivated by compassion when helping a stranger than are atheists, agnostics and less religious people. Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief A new University of British Columbia study finds that analytic thinking can decrease religious belief, even in devout believers. Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Not in any direct way. That is, it doesn’t provide an argument for the existence of God. But it does so indirectly, by providing an argument against the philosophy called materialism... |