Wearing religion on our sleeve.

At the time when Jesus started on his ministry and surrounded himself with twelve disciples (and some of their wifes)  it was unlikely they wore any kind of identifiable clothes or material that would have said ‘we belong to a very special kind of religious sect’.  Imagine no mitres, no chasuble, alb, stole, rings, croizier, just simple everyday clothes.  What made Jesus and his disciples truly distinguishable was what they did for the poor, the indigent , sick and infirm.  Only then did Jesus speak of the 'good news' often in the practised form of parables.  What most of us Christians and certainly the religious leaders of his time often missed or grasped is that these parables were usually expressed in upside down and contradictory terms against a  world of strict and accepted cultural, moral and religious values.  If anyone wanted to become his followers the ‘upside down’ kingdom values were the only way.  The narrow gate, eye of the needle represented the love and compassion necessary to bring kingdom values into practise. Jesus never wrote anything down, or dictated any rules or instructed anyone that what he did or spoke of should be formed into strict dogma or doctrine.   At the same time Jesus certainly never suggested that his listeners should become Jewish or insisted that they attend the synagogue at least once a week.  Instead, compassion and Love were to be practised everyday. Jesus associated as easily with despised tax collectors, as he did with prostitutes or women and men who did not even belong to his Jewish community. He was 100 percent inclusive and frequenly challenged the norms .  Jesus and his disciples healed the sick, cured the blind, forgave the sinner and promised listeners that they should pick up their cross and live a life to be lived to the full.

To live such a joy filled life all that was required is ‘repentance’ from the original Greek word metanoia meaning a 'change of mind and heart'.  And for most of us this can be a totally up-side down experience especially when dealing with difficult situations and people.  All you need we are told is a total trust in God  with his added proviso that his Holy Spirit will  then act as our guide, and teach us all we need to know to become true believers in this new way of life.  In so doing miracles will become an everyday event, even to the point of seeing people being raised from the dead. 

You would have thought that most of us would have jumped to the chance to give up our pain and suffering, but not so.  The ego quickly came to our rescue by immediately spreading  doubt that anything could be that easy.  And soon Jesus message seemed far too difficult and demanding for most of us   After listening to him talk about the laborers in the vineyard who all received the same amount of pay regardless of the number of hours they put in – we quickly figured this model was never going to become popular or fair.   What about giving up our hard earned and respected social position in life and sitting at the lowest end of the table?  No that wasn’t something most of us are ready to accept.  We worked to hard for that.  That guy Jesus and his disciples who looked like beggars were probably crazy and should be quickly chased out of town.

Today Jesus’ promise remains as true as ever,  yet few of us are willing to trust him so completely that we prefer to play it safe by putting our primary trust in worldly institutions instead.  Here the wages are scaled according to our performance while highly trained doctors and nurses will take care of our health.  As for concerns for the poor, sick and indigent, well various government organizations will take care of most of them. By the way political rules also help us to avoid any need for direct contact with the less fortunate. And, those who call themselves ‘street people’ probably prefer to live that way anyway. 

As for the worldly institutions even the religious ones have taken up the accepted social structure first introduced by the Roman Emperor Constantine.  Roman Catholic clergy today still follow a strict code or regimen with regard its political structure, dress and hierarchy,  which is based on Constantine’s military background. Up until the time of Constantine Christians were under constant threat of being persecuted in the most violent of ways by various Roman rulers.  After that the roles were reversed and the Christians became the persecutors.  History is filled with many dark periods of religious persecution. I  will spare readers the horrific details.  However while persecution may be less obvious today a lot of fervent and very militant Christians have trouble being compassionate with people living on the margins of life, particularly those with life styles other than prescribed by the their religious leaders. Calls for compassion are quickly dismissed in the most negative terms or un-Christian ways.  By denying any responsibility for such damaging teachings they  quickly deny them   by calling it ‘bashing  of the faith’! (their faith I guess)

"Religious symbols are contentious when displayed in the public sphere. They are seen as territorial marking, like a soldier planting a flag or a dog lifting its leg. So naturally the symbol of the Red Cross was rejected by Muslim countries, which adopted the Red Crescent, instead. But neither cross nor crescent was acceptable to Israel, which wanted a Red Star of David. However, that was rejected by the Muslims as symbolising Zionism. Finally they all settled on the Red Crystal, a secular symbol that includes everyone".  Source: Concordat Watch.

Today we hear that Christians are targets when they enter countries where they are considered a minority.  Is that because we walk around with crosses on chest, bibles under our arms and erect large crosses on mountain tops?   Christian or ‘followers of the way’ would have little to fear if we practised what Jesus told us to do with compassion for all strangers.         Most if not all the worlds religions accept the Golden Rule ‘do unto others as you would them have  unto you’.  So I’ll end with this crazy thought what if all religions stopped wearing their religion on their sleeves and practised indiscriminate compassion might it result in less violence (after all how would you recognize the competition?)  and how would we know who to reject?  

But now I will come to the real point of this brief essay and again ask the question ‘is it necessary to wear our religion on our sleeve?’ Or more pointedly does Christianity depend on what we wear, what denomination we attend, what version of the Bible we read, or who is in and who is out in our community, what prayers we need to recite and ritual we must perform, what we must believe, and most importantly for some 'who will go to heaven or hell'? Do we really need to fear or distrust other religions, athiest or agnostics, and gays? Do we trust the institution, ourselves or God, to save us in the end? Or is there something far more wonderfully positive beyond our limited understanding of God and his unconditional love, from what we have been taught thus far?

Readers may be interested to read noted author and religious historian Karen Armstrong's latest book 'Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life', (2010).  What was especially significant for me was her chapter on "Compassion for Yourself'  highlighting the point that we really cannot love others until we learn to love ourself. 

Same-Sex Marriage



Click on this image to enlarge text

In the not too distant future the ruling members of the Vatican will hopefully  don sackcloth and ashes when they realize the immense harm and pain they have caused their own flock as well as the rest of the world.

Noted author and religious scholar Karen Armstrong  in her latest book, Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life’ (2011) makes this brief but powerful comment about the Catholic Church:

“In the Roman Catholic Church, popes and bishops have ignored the suffering of countless women and children by turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse committed by their priests”. 

Catholic apologist today like to distract its members from the real issues (primarily concerning sins committed in the pelvic area) by pointing fingers into the other direction and claiming that they are merely victims of religious persecution.

One recent example of identifying other isolated victims comes to us from the Catholic NewsService  whose author Mark Pattison writes  "several US Bishops (along with more than three dozen U.S. religious leaders) signed a joint document voicing their concern that they are being forced to treat same-sex unions 'as if they were marriage."

   This very un-Christian letter or document takes up the argument, not so much on religious grounds, but rather on the impact same-sex marriages will have on legal and domestic grounds.  For example the signatories warned that ‘Religious employers would "face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action -- no matter how modest -- against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil 'marriage' with a member of the same sex”.  The real question then should be ‘exactly whose rights are being denied? Since the details are readily available to the readers, I will leave it to them to form their own opinions.

When this item first appeared online through various Catholic websites I quickly posted my thoughts on the subject as follows:

"Reading this letter is like reading the instructions for building a fortress or assembling missiles. The overwhelming essence this message conveys is one of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of offending the authorities, the legal system, the insurance industry and an even greater fear that legalization of same-sex marriage will somehow undermine or even destroy so-called family values. Nothing can undermine what we hold true in God!

 
Has anyone noticed that there are several key words missing in this text? There is not a single reference to God or love? Be assured that when fear steps in the Holy Spirit steps aside. This has allowed some of our more vocal religious leaders to rely on temporal support for their argument rather than trusting in the unconditional love of our Creator. Allow me to paraphrase the last paragraph of this document accordingly: The value of marriage (mixed or otherwise) when honoured between two loving people and blessed by God transcends any society or government. God rather than worldly institutions and opinions must be the only true foundation of all societies".

As expected several conservative individuals immediately jumped in at the opportunity to properly denounce people with homosexual tendencies.  These fervent Christians are convinced that they have the full support of God, the magisterium and a vast majority of similar thinking laity.

In response to my posting one contributor wondered if I was crazy because I talked too much about God's unconditional love.  At the same time he/she voiced the opinion that I lacked the intelligence to provide an explanation that would reach God's logic.  When I suggested that perhaps other readers might benefit from his/her definition of God’s unconditional love, I received this reply:

 “If all that is required for a marriage is love, then why limit it to just two people, why not love between two of more people?  Why discriminate against these other kinds of love? On the other hand, keeping marriage between a man and a woman, as a means to bond and create a family is consistent and logical.  Once you get rid of this definition, then pretty much anything goes”.

At this point most readers would probably recommend  I not respond to such an outrageous comment.  Sorry, but I did.

“Dear . . .  From reading between the lines it appears you have a problem with persons with sexual preferences or attractions that are different from yours. There are cultures and traditions in many parts of the world where a marriage involves more than two people. Is that wrong? If so, why and according to whose standards? Many biblical heroes and figures such as Abraham and David had more than one wife or concubine. The list is quite long. If the sole purpose of keeping a marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family what do you say to those families where one of the two partners is infertile? To jump to the simple conclusion that if we DON'T limit your definitions of love then ‘anything goes’! If that is all it takes to break your connection with God then He is no more than your average weak human being. Or at best a god created in our own poor image.

 
As for lust that is something that is equally shared by both heterosexual and homosexual couples. But your comment begs the question ‘how will the average God fearing individual know, when and if homosexuals or lesbians, etc. are indeed involved in that sinful sexual act? The catechism is at least more generous than you toward people of the same sex by telling us that we must love them – perhaps for some not the act. We could all do with trying to be more compassionate and less judgmental toward each other. Lets therefore again focus on the real meaning of God’s unconditional love”.

And that was the last I heard from our very convinced anti-gay friend. May the spirit of compassion and understanding fill his heart and bring him peace.

Before you leave this page, I would ask that you click and enlarge the picture that accompanies this article in the begining.  It has some interesting things to say about marriage taken from the Bible.  

Reading the Bible without Starting a War

Want to initiate a religious war? Start a Bible study group without the very necessary examination and explanation of what the bible is and what it is not. For example - were the Hebrew Scriptures transmitted directly by God to a group of inspirited scribes? If not, how did it come to be? Was the New Testament handed down orally by the disciples to a select group of scribes after the death of Jesus? Again, if not ask what, when, where, and finally who wrote it - and to whom it was directed. Christians are often introduced to the bible as though it were a history book to be read in a precise order from Genesis to Revelation. Approaching the bible in this manner will inevitably lead to an early disappointment and a complete disinterest by the time you reach the books of Leviticus and Numbers. After all just how important is the Law of Offerings and Sacrifices, or the first census of Israel to our spiritual growth at this time of our spiritual exploration? For the novice I have always recommended a simpler and less detailed version of the bible, such as can be found in a children’s edition – these can give us the essence we need to progress in our search for deeper meanings later on. A ‘Complete Idiot’s’ or a ‘Dummies’ guide can be very helpful at all times. As Christians we need to understand the relationship between the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament.

What else should the reader know? To begin with learn why Catholics include 46 books in the Old Testament, and Protestants have 39. Both groups accept 27 books for the New Testament. Hint: know there is nothing sinister or secret about the difference as some people want to believe.

And then there are the writings or “unofficial scriptures” or sacred text that was not incorporated in the Jewish and Christian Bibles.  Remarkably some of these texts are referenced within the accepted version of our present day bibles.   Although excluded from the Christian canon many of these writings were well known to the early Christian community - particularly in the form of art.  Scenes and stories from these writings were portrayed throughout history and may also have been well known to many believers.  According to distinguished Professor J.R. Porter, and author of ‘The Lost Bible – Forgotten Scriptures Revealed’ concludes “it is not really possible to draw a sharp distinction between the non-canonical works on the one hand and the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament on the other.  From the little I have gleaned from these books there is little to cause us to view the present bible in a different light when read with proper discernment.        

How we interpret  the bible is very much influenced by the style or literary devices (figures of speech) used by its various known and unknown authors. The use of metaphors, similes, euphemisms, paradoxes’, symbolism's, etc., etc. are generously sprinkled throughout each book. A perfect example of how these devises can influence our interpretation can be found in the last book of the Bible – or the Book of Revelation Some will see the symbols as depicting the clash between good and evil. Others will interpret the events as described in Revelation as something that has already taken place. While still others, especially fundamentalist (literalists), read the book as a speculative prophecy, literally portraying the apocalyptic end of time in which the glorified Christ will come to earth and usher in Judgment Day.

Some people are surprised to learn that large parts of Scripture were not written down immediately. Stories about the meaning of life were passed on orally for centuries. Imagine sitting around an open fire with our forefathers explaining the origins of humankind. It is important to note that oral tradition did not end with the invention of the written word. The earliest Hebrew Scriptures such as the psalms, for example, were not officially recorded until some five hundred years BCE for a very good reason. Karen Armstrong in her book 'The Bible - A Biography' (2007),  notes, from the very beginning; people feared that a written scripture encouraged inflexibility and unrealistic, strident certainty. The early Christians expecting Jesus to return during their lifetime saw no need to record their stories. Luckily for us the authors of the four gospels eventually recorded the story of Jesus albeit decades after the actual event.

An exclusive literal interpretation of the bible, according to experts such as Karen Armstrong, is a recent development. Until the nineteenth century, very few people imagined that the first chapter if Genesis was a factual account of the origins of life. For centuries, Jews and Christians relished highly allegorical and inventive exegesis, insisting that a wholly literal reading of the Bible was neither possible not desirable. Even so for some, the bible continues to be interpreted quite literally. For many others it is read contextually and interpretively. There are many contradictions in the bible, not the least of which caused people to believe that the earth was the centre of the universe. This problem was not rectified until the seventeenth century thanks to the efforts of Galileo. But not before he was condemned by the Roman Catholic authorities and forced to live in house arrest until his death. For those who want to approach the bible from a literalist point of view I suggest they read the anonymous and humorous Letter to Dr. Laura Schlesinger contained in my previous blog ‘On the Bible’. At the same time you might also benefit from the earlier blog ‘On Interpreting the Bible’.

Lastly, I want to share two secrets that will help anyone interested in learning the meaning behind its most difficult passages. Karen Armstrong tells us that serious biblical authorities have always insisted that charity must be the guiding principle – any interpretation that spread hatred or disdain was considered illegitimate. And most importantly– ask God to guide you with his gift of discernment – read it with the heart not the head.

UPDATE:  Jan. 26/2011

Consider the following:      It has been said that if the bible were the actual word of God there would be only one book with all the supreme truths as revealed by him to ALL people   -  illiminating all disagreement, argument,  and  religious wars.  Yes, all scripture contains some truths, but the ultimate truth is contained in your heart – and nowhere else.