Tag: Religion

  • The Way Home

    One of the phrases that’s popped up in conversation for me over the last several years is people referring to themselves as “spiritual, but not religious.” This phrase has always caused me to scratch my chin and ask, “What do you mean by that?” 

    The reason for my confusion is that by our very nature as humans, we are spiritual beings. Every person has an inherent spirituality. Spirituality is merely our attempts at making sense of the nonsensical, or of taking the mystery out of the mystical; it is our attempt at bringing order to the chaos that is our existence. Sometimes we take the random things that happen in our lives and we ascribe meaning to them, and other times we assign meaning to the coincidences and near misses in our lives. It’s been going on for centuries. Look at the goddess Fortuna, or the Fates, or the Norse god Freyr. Making sense of the nonsensical is what we do as humans.

    So, to me, for someone to say that they are “spiritual, but not religious,” means that they are saying something to the effect of “I’m a human being.” 

    Of course, I’m being deliberately obtuse with my own question, because what people generally want to convey with that statement is that they simply do not subscribe to any form of organized religion, and prefer to find their own method of making sense of the world; that they do not find any meaning in the structures others have created, but prefer to create their own order within the chaos.

    John O’Donohue says that spirituality is “the art of homecoming,” by which he means that we are all trying to find a place within our own lives where we find peace, comfort, and serenity, if even for a moment. A place where we are comfortable to be ourselves; a place where we are not pushed around by the hurts, the mistrust, the urgent requirements, the oughts, and shoulds, our past regrets, or future worries. Spirituality is a way of finding in us the beauty that is ourselves. When we enter into that place, then we have come home, and from that place of peace we are able to gather the energy needed to find the love, the patience, and the joy to make positive changes in our lives. This has nothing to do with religion, though O’Donohue himself was a practicing Christian, and former Catholic priest.

    Thich Nhat Hanh, Buddhist monk and teacher, says something very similar. The task of meditation and mindfulness is to bring us to the present moment, where all of our past regrets, future worries, the mistrust, the hurt, the anger is put aside; it is, in a sense, coming home to the body, to ourselves. Then, when we have attained that moment of presence within ourselves, we can bring those things to mind that need further examination, and can deal with them out of a sense of tranquility, so that when we leave that space within ourselves and enter into the world outside, we can engage with others with more peace, with more confidence, and with more tranquility. Though he was a practicing Buddhist, this too had not much to do with organized religion, and focused more on finding that space within that gave us the energy to confront the space without.

    And this, of course, is what most people wish to convey with the phrase, “Spiritual but not religious.” They hope to convey that they have found that space within themselves that affords them this sense of peace and tranquility.

    I had a conversation with someone this past year, in which the person told me that they are in a state of constant anxiety. They blamed their upbringing, they blamed their parents, their job, their relationships. They even blamed people like me – religious types who have “gone all in” for our religion, flawed though that religion might be in their judgment. When I said that I had found a measure of peace and tranquility in my religion, and that they should give it a shot, I was told that they had already tried my religion, and that it didn’t work. 

    In fact, this person had tried almost every major religion; they had tried various retreats and philosophies; they had tried meditation practices, treatments based on the latest scientific studies, and even therapy. Nothing had worked. To which I mentioned that in my time of knowing them, I had seen them dabble in many things, but never pick one and follow through with commitment and determination. I said that each religion and philosophical practice (including therapy), offers at least the hope of enlightenment, and so they ought to pick one, follow it with determination and commitment until they reach the end, and see if enlightenment is waiting for them there.

    Then came an odd sort of confession. Apparently, they had been told the same thing by a monk at a retreat center almost thirty years ago. And, they claimed, they had done just that in the years since. My response was brief: if I’m saying the same thing to you now, thirty years later, then it’s obvious that you have not followed a path to its conclusion; instead, you’ve continued in your path of dabbling.  

    We dabble in what can bring healing and wholeness, by choosing only what feels good, avoiding those things that don’t feel good, and spending time in this space until we determine that the promise of a more complete wholeness has not materialized – generally when that promise of wholeness involves dealing with things we find unpleasant. We dabble in spiritual niceties, and avoid stepping over the threshold of the difficult and painful. 

    In an interview with Krista Tippett, John O’Donohue speaks very deliberately about thresholds in our lives, places where we begin to look at ourselves more critically, where we begin to understand ourselves more deeply, and where we enter into the beauty of wholeness. But it takes a willingness to allow ourselves to be “threshed,” to be separated from our past patterns and behaviors in such a way that a new wholeness and beauty emerges from the depths of our being. In other words, it is not an easy choice, and it needs to be a deliberate one.

    And this is where those who practice Christianity can be dabblers as well. We can be so focused on living up to the standards that those in our communities have set, that we focus on the “looking good,” rather than on the “becoming.” Because “becoming” involves “threshing” and becoming involves pain and suffering; becoming involves looking into the void, the depth of our regrets and the lengths of our errors, and finding meaning where there appears to be none. We dabble when we try to live up to the things our religion seems to demand but avoid the prompting of the Holy Spirit to transform our lives.

    There are those who are religious and not spiritual, just like there are those who are spiritual but not religious.

    And there are those, both practitioners of a particular religion, as well as those who are spiritual but not religious, that examine their lives, sit with these painful, embarrassing, or unhappy memories, and allow those moments to sprout forth new meaning and joy.

    Our tendency as humans is to avoid suffering, and that means that we even avoid thinking about painful things, about embarrassing things, about things that cause inner turmoil. But our nature as humans is also to make errors, to say things that are hurtful to others, to do things that are not beneficial to ourselves, and, in general, to just foul up good things.

    We should not cover up the pain. We take care of it. To ignore or suppress the pain would be doing violence to ourselves. Mindfulness is us, but the painful feeling is also us. There’s no fighting. This is the view of nonduality.

    When we avoid going home to ourselves, we allow our pain to grow.

    Thich Nhat Hanh1

    To truly find peace, we must accept that we are flawed, we must consider ourselves as “whole” and acceptable, just as we are, warts and all; we are not merely good, or just plain bad; we are a muddy whole. And when we have accepted that we are not the super heroes we make ourselves out to be, then we must allow those painful memories, those regrets and failures to “thresh” us, we must allow them to enter into our minds and into our lives where we can examine them, and allow them to till the soil of our being so that they produce that promised wholeness. 

    When we do, that is when our lives begin to double, and failure and defeat produce peace and joy, rather than pain and anxiety.

    1. Reconciliation: Healing the Inner Child, Thich Nhat Hanh, p. 148 (Kindle Edition), Parallax Press, 2006 (The link to this book is an Amazon Associates link. I receive a few pennies from Amazon if you purchase this book.)
  • The Hand Of God

    Daily Office Readings – Gospel ( John 5:30-47 )

    This past week I had been listening to a sermon by Fr. Terry McGugan from Christ Church Denver. At one point in the sermon he looks out to the congregation and speaks directly to some of the parishioners and tells them they are the church. This is something that I have heard repeatedly in sermons by various pastors, in different forms, but with the same general idea: if God will act in this world, he will act through us. The hand of God is you. The Church is us. A retired priest at one church I attended used the phrase, “The Second Coming of Christ isn’t so much something that happens to us, but something that happens through us.”

    This comment about how each of us is the church forced me to think a bit more about ecclesiology, or the nature and structure of the church, when viewed in the context of theology. Because I’ve been a part of several churches throughout the years, both denominational and non-denominational, I stopped to think about some of the ways people have expressed church structure and organization to me.

    When people have seen the church as an extension of God, the church has taken on the nature of whichever trait of God they see as most relevant or important. If they see God as a divine judge, then the church was viewed as an extension of God’s judgment. When they saw God as commander and warrior, the church focused more heavily on nationalistic and patriotic themes. When people saw the church more of an extension of the Holy Spirit, the church took on the role as purveyor of miracles in the world, as humanity’s defenders against the powers of darkness, or the distributors of God’s wisdom through prophetic messages they’ve received from God. When the people see the church as more of an extension of Christ, it seems they’ve seen themselves as defenders of the poor, and perhaps as those sacrificing themselves for others against the backdrop of the rich seeking to exploit those around them.

    Which then led me to wonder, is ecclesiology more of an extension of theology, pneumatology, or christology?

    I think the answer is “Yes.”

    God is a warrior, a commander, but also the sacrificial lamb. God is the divine judge, the final arbiter of truth, but also the source of mercy and grace. God displays power through miracles and divine messages, but also through the rather mundane consequences of our decisions and actions. God is present when someone helps out those less fortunate, but God is equally as present when a rich person comes to understand the love of God.

    Focusing on these various aspects of God when attempting to shape our churches is what makes us human, and what helps to make God known to those around us. Each church or denomination may have a different focus, but when all are taken together it gives a clearer picture of who God is, and what God is attempting to do in the world. At various times, and in various places, different representations of God in the world will provide all those who are seeking the Divine to understand another aspect of who God is.

    Some people attend charismatic or pentecostal churches because they need to see the miraculous to understand a God that provides healing, or understands them deeply, beyond what they share of themselves with the world. Some people attend churches that focus on social justice because they need to see a God that serves up justice and cares for the oppressed. Some attend legalistic churches because they need to experience order and clear cut rules amidst an otherwise chaotic life. And each of these churches provides an aspect of God to the world.

    I do not think it wrong to have churches that focus on one aspect of God more than another, but I do think that we are doing a disservice to one another when we attempt to call out other collections of believers for failing to believe as we do, for failing to make our focus their focus. They may have been called to focus on another aspect of God in their work in this world, while we may have been called to another. To believe that others are not following or sharing God because they do not focus on the same aspect of God that we do is hubris, and brings us closer to our own downfall.

    As I read this morning’s Daily Office, Jesus’ comments to the Jewish leadership helped to clarify my thinking. When Jesus confronts the leaders on their inability to accept him, he is speaking politically. The extent of his rejection by the leaders of the day is well known. And the rejection of Christ by the leaders of the day is a direct result of failing to acknowledge the literal hand of God standing in their midst. Why? Because they saw their way of organizing religion as the only way; as the right way. It was their desire to maintain their power by refusing to acknowledge the work of God in their midst that eventually found their work, their power, and their prestige diminishing.

    At the point that they were having this conversation with Jesus, they were the church; the spiritual foundation of the day. Imagine the work they could have done if they had acknowledged Jesus and joined with him to do the work he had come to do? 

    Of course, this leaves me with some cognitive dissonance, because there are churches that I disagree with; whose focus is clearly different from mine, and where I might not even feel we are worshipping the same God. But I need to remind myself that even these churches are God’s hand in the world, and are serving a purpose that I may not currently understand.

  • Do As I Say

    Daily Office Readings – Gospel ( Matthew 23:1-12 )

    [Today’s entry is less of a full-fledged thought and more of a compilation of separate thoughts on different portions of the scripture, more in line with what I had originally expected from the Daily Office Reflections.]

    Do As I Say 

    Once again, in today’s Gospel reading, Jesus is calling out the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. He tells the people to do as the Pharisees and teachers of the law teach, but not at all to do as they do

    That’s harsh criticism, and from what we’ve heard from Jesus and others, not unwarranted. The Pharisees and teachers of the law, after all, loved to make sure that others carried out the law to the letter, while they were able to justify their own actions to make their own lives easier.

    We all like to justify our own actions (link to last week’s entry), and in this passage Jesus gives us another reason for why we do what we do. The Pharisees in today’s gospel used their religion as a stage performance. They wore the clothes that expressly elevated their virtue, and they sought out the places of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogue. They loved to be regarded as the wise ones, who could educate and guide others.

    None of those motivations involved loving God.

    Instead, every one of their motivations involved loving themselves, and what their perceived virtue brought them.

    I remember hearing a story about Mahatma Gandhi when asked about the Christian faith. He responded that “I like your Christ, but not your Christianity.” When pressed, he extended his thoughts with: “I believe in the teachings of Christ, but you on the other side of the world do not, I read the Bible faithfully and see little in Christendom that those who profess faith pretend to see.”(1) In other words, Gandhi was essentially saying, “I’d be a Christian, if it weren’t for Christians.”

    If Ghandi saw the same behaviors in people almost one hundred years ago that Jesus saw in those of his own age, then we can safely assume that the tendency to be seen and perceived as “good” remains firmly planted in our cultural consciousness even today.

    So if we are subject to the same tendencies as the Pharisees, then one of the most important aspects of our faith needs to be our self reflection, or a desire to understand our motivations for believing – and more importantly living – according to what we believe. Because if our motivations are to be seen as good, without actually living out our own teachings, then we will be seen as the self-serving, self-absorbed individuals that Jesus called the Pharisees, and Gandhi called the Christians of the West.

    Don’t Call Anyone Father

    Having been a part of a denomination that ordains both priests and deacons, and gives the title of Father to a priest, I’ve encountered enough conversations with Christians of other denominations who bring up this passage to point out that liturgical churches are flawed, since they use the title Father.

    But, this passage also talks about how we are not to call anyone a Rabbi, which is the Jewish word for teacher; and, interestingly enough, what the disciples called Jesus. Nor are we to presume to be an instructor. Regardless of the title, every pastor of any Christian denomination will be assumed to be a teacher, an instructor, or one to whom others look for leadership. And this passage tells us that we are not to assume any of those positions for ourselves. Instead, we are to seek humility, since every last one of us learns from God, the only true teacher of the heart.

    In the sense that the word Father (or Mother, as the case may be) is used to address the pastor of a church, it is only that: a title. This passage is referring to the idea of presuming to elevate someone else to the level of God-hood on this earth. It’s combating the idea of giving someone such complete control over our lives as to make them out to be God. If you need an example, look no further than the various cults that have littered our country, and still do(2). In these situations, people have relinquished control of their lives to another human being, in effect making them the god of their life.

    (1) https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1927/1/11/mahatma-gandhi-says-he-believes-in/
    (2) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-identify-a-cult-six-expert-tips/