834.
100908 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
D r a f t
Sundays I can hardly refrain myself from
weeping when, during the prayers, I hear the names of those serving our
nation in Afghanistan and Iraq who were killed that week. Who can contemplate
the meaning of their lost lives without grief?
As another anniversary of
9/11 approaches, already tolling over 35,000 American casualties plus the
multitudes of other nations affected and the three trillion dollars estimated
ultimate costs, I worry that the traditional voices of faith are still
discounted as unrealistic.
* Jesus said, “Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.”
* The Buddha said, “Hatred
does not cease by hatred, but only by love.”
* Muhammad said, “Better
than prayers, fasting and giving alms to the poor is making peace . . .
. Enmity and malice destroy all virtues.”
Nevertheless, religions and
governments have developed three categories for understanding attacks:
crime, war and disease. The disease metaphor aligns best with early faith
teachings.
Until 9/11, terrorism was
treated as a crime, with focused resources leading to punishment.
When the “War on Terror”
was announced, enormous resources were committed, but Osama bin Laden remains
at large.
General Petraeus seems to
include the third approach. What is the disease which manifests as terrorism
and what are its breeding grounds? How can the disease be cured?
We Americans need to ask
these questions not just of the Afghans but also of ourselves.
One symptom of our own disease
is ignorance, as when folks still ask, “Why don’t Muslims condemn violence?”
[when in fact they do.] As the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council
said in a statement Aug. 23, “The terrorists did not commit a religious
act on 9/11; it was murder. Overwhelmingly Muslims locally and worldwide
immediately spoke out against the defilement of their faith on that day.”
Here is balm to cure our
own ignorance:
* Sept. 11 at 8 p.m., Community
Christian Church offers an interfaith program, “From Pain to Peace.” Visit
www.dpfkc.faithweb.com.
* Sept. 12 at 9:15 a.m.,
Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral presents Mahnaz Shabbir speaking about
being a Muslim after 9/11.
* Sept. 26 the Crescent Peace
Society holds its 14th annual dinner at the Ritz-Charles. Visit www.crescentpeace.org.
* Oct. 29 Greg Mortenson,
who advises our military, will receive the Community of Christ International
Peace Award. Famous for his book, “Three Cups of Tea,” he has [been
successful in building] built schools in central Asia. Visit www.cofchrist.org/peacecolloquy/
for the brochure.
NOTES
Sept
11 details: FROM PAIN TO PEACE: Easing Suffering - Creating
Sanctuary. -- Join us for Interfaith Remembrance and Recovery From 911,
Saturday, September 11, 2010, 8:00pm. -- Music, Speakers, Dance, Skylight
over the Plaza. -- Participate in letting go pain and blame and embracing
peace and hope. This event is open to the public. A freewill
offering will be collected for Heart to Heart Int’l. Featured speaker is
Dr. Jan Linn with Music by Musica Vocale and Dance by Tuesday Faust. Music
provided by Musica Vocale, under the direction of Arnold Epley. Epley just
retired from William Jewell College where he served 27 years as Director
of Choral Studies. He has also served as Conductor of the Kansas
City Symphony Chorus and Fine Arts Chorale. Pieces performed will
include Virgil Thompson's "Fanfare for Peace" and Carson Cooman's "Canticle:
Mosaic in Remembrance and Hope" commissioned by Harvard University for
the one year memorial of September 11th. This work combines some
of the principal writings of five faith traditions - Jewish, Christian,
Muslim, Buddhist, and Baha'i - on the theme of remembrance, hope, and peace.
- Readings from several faith traditions to include Jewish, Muslim
(Ahmed El-Sherif), Christian (Fr. Mike Roach), Buddhist (Ray Porter), and
Baha'i. - Poetry and Interpretive Dance by Ron and Tuesday Faust.
The interpretation through dance is done to an original work by Rev. Dr.
Ron Faust.-- Reception to follow on the west balcony of Community
Christian Church overlooking the plaza. Presented by the Kansas City Disciples
Peace Fellowship, http://dpfkc.faithweb.com.
-- For information contact Jeff Hon (816-407-7756) or Ron Faust (816-468-1868).
The church is located at 4601 Main.
Sept
12 details: The class is held in Founders Hall, 13th and Broadway,
the new addition to the Cathedral. For information about Mahnaz Shabbir,
visit www.cres.org/pubs/mahnaz.htm.
Sept
26 details: The 14th Annual Eid Celebration and Awards Dinner
is Sept 26 Sunday 6 pm, The Ritz-Charles, 9000 W 137, Overland Park, 913-685-2600.
Ibrahim Abdul-Matin, author of Green Deen: Islam's Perspective on Protecting
Our Planet, is the keynote speaker. Adult $30, childen under 12 $20.
Prepay by Sept 19. Visit www.crescentpeace.org.
Oct
29 details: The Peace Award Ceremony, free and open to the public,
is at 7:30 pm, followed by book-signing at 9 pm, at the Community of Christ
Temple 201 S. River Blvd. Independence, MO 64050. Visit www.cofchrist.org/peacecolloquy.
More info: Jeanette Hicks,co-director (816) 833-1000, ext. 2224, or jhicks@CofChrist.or
or Brad ext 2355.
833. 100901 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Stories help tell the real truth
for us
A careful reader took me to task for relating
a religious story he does not believe is true.
I responded that religions
are, in part, metaphors and stories. One can miss the point of sacred texts
if one thinks only of facts.
Here’s an example: fire.
Think of a candle flame on a birthday cake, the Deepwater Horizon conflagration
or Independence Day fireworks.
Now look at Hebrews 12:29:
“For our God is a consuming fire.”
This is not a scientific
statement. God is not subject to the three requirements for fire we learned
in physics class: oxygen, sufficient heat and combustible material. To
take the biblical wording literally is to miss the point.
We do not lie when we tell
the fable of the tortoise and the hare challenging each other to a race.
The meaning is not defeated by the fact that tortoises and hares do not
really converse. The meaning is the moral the story conveys: “slow but
steady wins the race.”
I do not have to believe
in blue humanoids on a distant planet to contemplate the message of the
movie “Avatar” about corporations despoiling nature.
Without believing in witches,
I can find wisdom about greed and power in Shakespeare’s play, “Macbeth,”
though witches play an important part in the story.
When the poet Shelly writes,
“O wild west wind, thou breath of autumn’s being,” begging the wind to
hear him, we do not think him demented though he addresses empty air. We
understand he is really talking to us about ideals like democracy.
I know atheists who are profoundly
moved by Bach’s “Mass in B Minor” and capitalists who find the Shostakovich
“Symphony No. 11 ‘Year 1905’” to be heart-rendingly genuine.
When I view Thomas Hart Benton’s
pin-up version of “Persephone” at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, I do
not have to believe in the Greek goddess, much less that a Midwestern farmer
actually spies her completely naked as he lusts for her.
Hades, the god of the underworld,
abducted Persephone. Her grieving mother abandoned her duties to
make crops grow until Hades agreed to return her to the earth for part
of the year.
Her cheered mother resumes
her agricultural chores, but neglects them when Hades requires her daughter
in winter.
Who does not lust for springtime?
Some truths are too big for
science; they require metaphors, stories, images and sounds that point
not to facts but to unmeasurable values.
As Zen teaches, we should
not focus on the finger pointing to the moon instead of the moon to which
it points.
NOTES
Persephone's
mother's name, Demeter in Greek, in Latin is Ceres, from which we get the
word cereal.
The Zen saying,
"The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon," parallels Alfred Korzybski's
famous remark that "The map is not the territory."
A parable guides
us from its details to decisions for our own lives.
READER
COMMENT
FROM
M.
Very thought provoking
piece this week, nicely written. Personally I don't think the focus
should be solely on the finger, or the moon, but at the "why".. why is
the finger pointed at the moon??
I have been very agitated
of late, particularly since the July 4th holidays, and I am beginning to
have concerns about the direction our nation and it's administration are
going. I was writing an "Unfettered Letter" as I occasionally do,
but before I submit it, I would politely beg your input as I do not want
to sound overly alarmist nor threatening in my attempt to draw attention
to what I see as a growing and dangerous problem.
I recently have been
having dreams of being back in uniform, the general feeling is that there
are fires burning in cities like Detroit and Chicago where capitalism has
largely withdrawn and left a vacuum of poverty. I know in my dreams
that there are places in the nation where it is currently not safe, or
even legal to travel. My waking fear is that we are driving headlong
into a conflict between those who feel they have the right to demand tolerance
of anything by everybody, and those who stand up and draw a line as to
what is and what is not "American".
This is the letter
I have written:
A sinister spiral
of impending violence has begun to coalesce around the heart and soul of
our United States.
Demands by Muslim
supporters for tolerance amid growing mistrust of Islamic motivations have
begun to manifest as increasingly divergent emotions and opinions.
With every demand and accusation by one side, there is growing posturing
for rejection by the other side. These sides are rapidly polarizing along
increasingly opinionated lines.
Unless supporters
of and opponents to the so-called "Ground Zero Victory Mosque" can find
reasonable and common sense compromise very quickly, violence is inevitable.
We may be literally on the edge of another American Civil War.
When religious leaders
DEMAND anything from Americans on their own soil, there will be an active
and vocal rebellion against a perceived exercise of authority, particularly
by a religion so recently associated with instability and violence in places
like Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Kenya and Somalia.
Anywhere freedom of
religion is allowed, demands made by a spiritual group for the sole benefit
of that group will be perceived by some as invasive and inappropriate.
You cannot DEMAND
tolerance without breeding intolerant reaction. Tolerance, like respect
must be earned over time.
*****************************************************************
I don't know how to
warn people more clearly, Vern..
I agree that people
in this country should have freedom to practice their faith. I do
not agree that allowing practice of a faith gives that faith the right
to make demands of an entire nation. If the population of the United
States has within it a large portion of people who find the location of
a religious symbol offensive due to the national significance of that site,
then the mere veil of "tolerance" is not enough to warrant the blatant
disregard of the values of a significant portion of the population.
If I decide that it
is my religious "right" to practice a skyclad pagan ritual in a city park
at dusk.. then I should expect to be arrested. Why? Because
the practice of my sacred beliefs is being oppressed? No.. I would
be arrested because my actions and choices are offensive to enough of the
population. What's the answer? Location, Location, Location..
arrested here.. noone gives a hoot there..
I would like
to think that the American public has enough self-control to handle any
perceived violation of our sense of propriety with calm debate and
reasonable compromise. But you and I both know that there are elements
in any group that will turn intolerance into action, despite consequences,
or perhaps, in hopes of consequence. Americans are afraid, agitated,
some are stressed by unemployment, fearful of what the economy may do,
dissatisfied with current administration, and bombarded by chicken little
screaming about the sky falling every time another glacier calves off some
ice...
How much more can
the weakest links take??
I am beginning to
be genuinely nervous Vern.. this is a bad time of year to be adding philosophical
debate to the coming onslaught of the holiday season, winter, and taxes..
I just think this debate needs to be cooled for a while, but who's going
to listen to that?
VERN'S
REPLY --
Why is the finger pointed at the moon? One won't know the answer by looking
at the finger.
Thanks for the compliment about the column. And your concern for our nation
and the world.
Your letter might
be more powerful if it were clearer. I can read it several ways. I am not
sure who you are complaining about. The people who are protesting the location
of a community center approved by Christians and Jews that will serve people
of all faiths with the inclusion of a prayer room for Muslims (just as
the Pentagon has, 30 steps from where that building was damaged on 9/11)
and whose protests endanger our nation by giving Al Qaida a propaganda
bonanza and make the job of General Patraeus and our troups far more difficult
as they seek allies among the populations where they are deployed -- or
the planners of the facility further away from Ground Zero than strip clubs,
betting booths, and two Christian locations?
Have you read all
of the facts and various views linked
from my site and considered the views that follow the list of links?
Or are you really
writing about Glenn Beck? and his foray last Sunday?
Or should your concern
really be about the influence foreign-born media master Rupert Murdoch
and multi-billionaire subversives like the Koch brothers?
full New Yorker article -- Frank
Rich NYTimes column.
I believe every American
should DEMAND that the Constitution apply -- "freedom and justice FOR ALL."
Those who want to make exceptions are the ones in my opinion who are dividing
this nation. They are the ones who cause me worry.
The laws against public
nudity apply REGARDLESS of faith. The laws of zoning apply REGARDLESS of
faith, as Jewish Mayor Bloomberg so eloquently indicated.
832. 100825 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Wise voice needed in debate
O my teacher, you’ve been dead many years,
but speak to me now about holy ground.
In one of your early masterpieces,
“Patterns in Comparative Religion,” you devote a whole chapter to sacred
spaces. That book helped make your name, Mircea Eliade, foremost among
historians of religion.
As a diplomat before your
exile from communist Romania, you knew the West’s role in creating the
modern nation of Saudi Arabia with its extreme Wahhabi sect.
You knew the U.S. overthrew
the democratic government of Iran in 1953, and installed the oppressive
Shah, which led to the revolution in 1979 and the taking of American hostages.
But you died before Osama
bin Laden and others recruited terrorists because of such American actions,
and tried to redefine Islam in part because American military bases were
put into Saudi Arabia, which, because Muhammad lived, received revelations
and died there, is considered holy ground.
Who decides if ground is
holy and if it is defiled?
Now I hear you making three
points.
*A
sacred spot is revealed not by a plaque but often by an event, as when
Moses was told to remove his shoes as God spoke to him from the burning
bush.
The event can be life-giving,
as with Moses, or horror. The Nazi incineration camps are holy because
the evil was so enormous that we cherish those who perished and the lessons
of that history which must persist with us.
And Abraham Lincoln understood
that Gettysburg was hallowed by those who died, inspiring us so that their
deaths not be in vain. Ground Zero, you would tell me, likewise is hallowed.
* A space is made
holy because an event there transforms the world. It creates an enduring
point of contact between the dead and the living. It changes how we see
things wherever we are.
Teacher, you are right. Even
as the World Trade Center was collapsing, people were saying, “Things will
never be the same.”
* Holy ground tells
a tale. Some places, like Jerusalem, have competing narratives. When stories
clash, holy ground may be desecrated.
I was your student and next-door
neighbor. I imagine you now on the porch asking about colliding chronicles:
“Will the nation to which
my wife, Christinel, and I came say Ground Zero honors the faiths of all
who died there, or accept bin Laden’s redefinition of Islam? Will only
the churches, synagogues and the Buddhist center, along with the strip
clubs, porn shops, bars and other businesses in the vicinity, give Ground
Zero its transcendent meaning, and America its witness to the world?”
Does Ground Zero consecrate
America more by including or excluding one faith from its neighborhood?
READER
COMMENT
Sixteen
comments appeared under the column on The Star's web site as of a wwk later.
All of the questions and objections have previously been addressed, so
no further response to them has been made. Comments below are from emails
sent directly to the columnist.
FROM
L.M.
It's me again. In regards to your article today "Wise Voice
Needed In Debate." I still know you are a nice guy, but yes, you
are still naive.
Even though you didn't take a visible stand, I assume you were somehow
criticizing me, and people like me, for complaining about the Muslims wanting
to build a mosque, apparently, as close to ground zero as they can get.
Just as they have in other places where their violent activities have given
them a victory over their "enemies". I don't need to elaborate on
this point because you know full well exactly what I am referring to.
Also, you mentioned how the "burning bush" (apparently God in some
kind of weird costume) told Moses to "remove his shoes." I find it
difficult to believe that an unimaginable complex and powerful supreme
being/creator of all gives a crap about whether or not one of his creations
appears before him/her/it with their shoes on. Why would such a creator
hate shoes so much? Or pork? or unveiled women? Or, in times past,
eating meat on Friday? Or someone not wearing a goofy little kind of cap
on their head? The creator sure seems to have some unsupreme, quirky
likes/dislikes.
Besides, if the supreme creator thinks that somehow shoes are so filthy,
what about the fact that by removing his shoes in the wilderness Moses
has just now dirtied his hands. Nothing was said about there being
bathroom facilities available at the place where the burning bush existed
so I have to assume that Moses continued to converse with God but with
Moses now having filthy hands from handling his shoes. Among other
things this would mean that God placed the two ten commandment tablets
into Moses filthy hands. Very unlikely, I believe.
In short, there are hundreds of stories in various religious books that
clearly show those stories were created completely in the minds of mere
mortals. Anyone who will not, cannot, see that is naive.
BTW, there is an answer. It is just that it is unknown and unknowable
. At least in this world. In the meantime, for a few thousand
years, mankind has been busy making up fairly tales to give himself comfort.
I don't really blame mankind for that nor do I really blame you for preaching
it.
VERN'S
REPLY --
You say, "there is an answer. It is just that it is unknown and unknowable."
I agree.
Religions are, in part, stories. I find Shakespeare's Hamlet
of great value even though I don't "believe" in ghosts. If I were describing
the play, I would include in my description the statement that the ghost
of Hamlet's father appears early in the play. That does not mean
I "believe" in ghosts. Similarly, when I describe the story of Moses, or
of Krishna, or of Jesus, that does not mean I "believe" this or that or
the other thing. I does mean I find some value, or others find some value,
in the stories, and that is what I am pointing toward.
I think we agreed to have coffee in September, and my calendar is a little
clearer.Lemme know if you are free weekday mornings or if weekends are
better for you and then let's find a time when you can come to Westport
and I'll buy.
FROM
P.S. --
Thank you for your KC Star article yesterday. I've been very disappointed
at all the fuss about a Muslim cultural center in lower Manhattan.
Calling it "a mosque at ground zero" seems to be the deliberately provocative
thing, not the proposal itself.
You make a good point about objecting to Muslims at this site is acting
as if we accept bin Laden's redefinition of Islam.
I hope that, among all the heated and sometime hateful comments, empathy
and understanding are advanced also.
VERN'S
REPLY --
I
agree with you about the provocation, started by Fox news and seemingly
legitimized by a once-noble organization, the Antidefamation League. Most
people do not yet have the facts. The room for prayer used by Muslims
in the Pentagon is just 30 feet from where the nose code of the airplane
hit there on 9/11, and nobody has made a fuss about that. I share your
hope that out of this somehow we will move forward.
I really appreciate your taking the trouble to write; your response to
the column encourages me!
steamy_pete
wrote on kansascity.com/ on 8/26/2010 --
There is one thing that is ultimately responsible for the terrorist attack
that cost lives and destroyed so much more than concrete and steel towers.
That one thing is fanatical pursuit of absolute faith. Specifics and particulars
do not in any way diminish the fact that once again, blood has been shed
in the name of FAITH, our excuse for killing each other for thousands of
years. Still we fail to grasp the lesson.
To serve as a reminder of the dangers associated with absolute reliance
on faith as a guiding principle for behavior, there is something that could
be done to determine how close religion should come to this site. Determine
the distance that the shadows of the Twin Towers covered, if all the ground
around them was unobstructed. Any ground where the shadows of those towers
should still be falling, no single faith should claim ground there. Faith-based
lobbying has determined limits on distances certain businesses can operate
from churches and schools, let the churches now accept and confess the
blood that faith has shed over human history and by exclusion swear not
to make that mistake again. Even now, when the wound is not closed on that
supposedly hallowed place, the arguments, bickering, accusations, lies,
and discrimination already point to the very reason this place is now of
consequence, and the obvious answer is..
Leave "God" out of it. "God" didn't fly those planes, didn't kill those
people, and isn't telling me to take off anything in New York.
J.
H. WROTE --
A friend in Ohio sent this, and after watching the video and looking at
some of the supporting documents I can't help but to send it to you in
the spirit of opening your eyes to the reality of the "other side of Islam".
I know that this behavior goes on in America every day. There is just too
much evidence of the anti-American, anti-Christian behavior to deny any
longer.
Since you think nothing but good thoughts about your Muslim brothers, have
"traveled widely" and "have many Muslim friends", reject the reality of
their purported "charities" feeding Hamas and other terrorist organizations
(albeit without the knowledge of the 'local congregations'), and you deny
that many of the Islamic organizations want nothing more than the complete
takeover of the Western World, then maybe some of this will help educate
you to the "other side of Islam", the Jihad side.
You might ask your Muslim Imam buddy what he thinks about this and the
countless numbers of mosques in the United States that knowingly or unknowingly
support subverting the way of life in our country and the rest of the Christian
World. Ask him, if you would be so kind, what he, and his congregation
are doing to stop this behavior in our country. I would submit very little,
otherwise we would hear about it! What a concept! You have an opportunity
to find out some real proof and details (not just the Imam's opinion,)
and report what your Muslim pals are doing to halt the Jihadist in America
and elsewhere!
And while you are
at it, ask him if any of the 2.5% of the Muslim's assets each year go to
LOCAL general purpose charities and how much goes to support only Muslim
projects, AND any of the twenty-nine Islamic organizations in our country
that support the Jihad called for in the film clip.
You might find that
there is truly an "other side" to these poor peace loving people.
Maybe when you are
done, you can write a editorial in our KC Star that at least acknowledges
the Truth. You may uncover some good that we need to be aware of. We American
Christian Lovers are so tired of hearing only the one-sided propaganda
and opinions that are not based on the ALL of the FACTS.
If you love your country,
watch this film / video before it is to late for freedom in America.
Oak is a group of
500 churches from coast to coast wanting to save the USA.
People did nothing
in Nazi Germany and then it was to late because the "evil one" had total
power, over 60 million people died from WW2 ------------- read your history.
They are coming fo
us - and around the world the Muslims are telling us "they will defeat
us" from within".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D5LmGVxwtI
VERN'S
REPLY --
I think I know more
about Islam that you will ever know because I know about the complexity
not only of Islam but also Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc,.I never
said there were not wicked people who call themselves Muslim or that evil
madrasses (schools) that inculcate hatred do not exist, or that "charities"
have not been misused (by many faiths!). The question is What are we going
to do about it? Are we going to be informed or inflamed?
I am afraid your answer
is Inflamed. That will defeat us if we do not know who the enemy really
is and who are natural allies are.
[Attachment
from THE WASHINTON POST Sunday, August 29, 2010; B03]
Five myths about mosques in America By Edward E.
Curtis IV
In addition to spawning passionate debates
in the public, the news media and the political class, the proposal to
build a Muslim community center near Ground Zero in New York has revealed
widespread misconceptions about the practice of Islam in this country --
and the role of mosques in particular.
1. Mosques are new to this country.
Mosques have been here since the colonial
era. A mosque, or masjid, is literally any place where Muslims make salat,
the prayer performed in the direction of Mecca; it needn't be a building.
One of the first mosques in North American history was on Kent Island,
Md.: Between 1731 and 1733, African American Muslim slave and Islamic scholar
Job Ben Solomon, a cattle driver, would regularly steal away to the woods
there for his prayers -- in spite of a white boy who threw dirt on him
as he made his prostrations.
The Midwest was home to the greatest number
of permanent U.S. mosques in the first half of the 20th century. In 1921,
Sunni, Shiite and Ahmadi Muslims in Detroit celebrated the opening of perhaps
the first purpose-built mosque in the nation. Funded by real estate developer
Muhammad Karoub, it was just blocks away from Henry Ford's Highland Park
automobile factory, which employed hundreds of Arab American men.
Most Midwestern mosques blended into their
surroundings. The temples or mosques of the Nation of Islam -- an indigenous
form of Islam led by Elijah Muhammad from 1934 to 1975 -- were often converted
storefronts and churches. In total, mosques numbered perhaps slightly more
than 100 nationwide in 1970. In the last three decades of the 20th century,
however, more than 1 million new Muslim immigrants came to the United States
and, in tandem with their African American co-religionists, opened hundreds
more mosques. Today there are more than 2,000 places of Muslim prayer,
most of them mosques, in the United States.
According to recent Pew and Gallup polls,
about 40 percent of Muslim Americans say they pray in a mosque at least
once a week, nearly the same percentage of American Christians who attend
church weekly. About a third of all U.S. Muslims say they seldom or never
go to mosques. And contrary to stereotypes of mosques as male-only spaces,
Gallup finds that women are as likely as men to attend.
2. Mosques try to spread sharia law in the
United States.
In Islam, sharia ("the Way" to God) theoretically
governs every human act. But Muslims do not agree on what sharia says;
there is no one sharia book of laws. Most mosques in America do not teach
Islamic law for a simple reason: It's too complicated for the average believer
and even for some imams.
Islamic law includes not only the Koran
and the Sunna (the traditions of the prophet Muhammad) but also great bodies
of arcane legal rulings and pedantic scholarly interpretations. If mosques
forced Islamic law upon their congregants, most Muslims would probably
leave -- just as most Christians might walk out of the pews if preachers
gave sermons exclusively on Saint Augustine, canon law and Greek grammar.
Instead, mosques study the Koran and the Sunna and how the principles and
stories in those sacred texts apply to their everyday lives.
3. Most people attending U.S. mosques
are of Middle Eastern descent.
A 2009 Gallup poll found that African Americans
accounted for 35 percent of all Muslim Americans, making them the largest
racial-ethnic group of Muslims in the nation. It is unclear whether Arab
Americans or South Asian Americans (mostly Pakistanis and Indians) are
the second-largest. Muslim Americans are also white, Hispanic, Sub-Saharan
African, Iranian, European, Central Asian and more -- representing the
most racially diverse religious group in the United States.
Mosques reflect this diversity. Though there
are hundreds of ethnically and racially integrated mosques, most of these
institutions, like many American places of worship, break down along racial
and ethnic lines. Arabs, for instance, are the dominant ethnic group in
a modest number of mosques, particularly in states such as Michigan and
New York. And according to a 2001 survey (the most recent national survey
on mosques available) by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, they
represented the plurality in only 15 percent of U.S. mosques.
4. Mosques are funded by groups and governments
unfriendly to the United States.
There certainly have been instances in which
foreign funds, especially from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region,
have been used to build mosques in the United States. The Saudi royal family,
for example, reportedly gave $8 million for the building of the King Fahd
Mosque, which was inaugurated in 1998 in Culver City, a Los Angeles suburb.
But the vast majority of mosques are supported
by Muslim Americans themselves. Domestic funding reflects the desire of
many U.S. Muslims to be independent of overseas influences. Long before
Sept. 11, 2001, in the midst of a growing clash of interests between some
Muslim-majority nations and the U.S. government -- during the Persian Gulf
War, for instance -- Muslim American leaders decided that they must draw
primarily from U.S. sources of funding for their projects.
5. Mosques lead to homegrown terrorism.
To the contrary, mosques have become typical
American religious institutions. In addition to worship services, most
U.S. mosques hold weekend classes for children, offer charity to the poor,
provide counseling services and conduct interfaith programs.
No doubt, some mosques have encouraged radical
extremism. Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian sheik who inspired the
World Trade Center's first attackers in 1993, operated out of the Al-Salam
mosque in Jersey City, N.J. But after the 2001 attacks, such radicalism
was largely pushed out of mosques and onto the Internet, mainly because
of a renewed commitment among mosque leaders to confront extremism.
There is a danger that as anti-Muslim prejudice
increases -- as it has recently in reaction to the proposed community center
near Ground Zero -- alienated young Muslims will turn away from the peaceful
path advocated by their elders in America's mosques. So far, that has not
happened on a large scale.
Through their mosques, U.S. Muslims are
embracing the community involvement that is a hallmark of the American
experience. In this light, mosques should be welcomed as premier sites
of American assimilation, not feared as incubators of terrorist indoctrination.
Edward E. Curtis IV is millennium chair
of liberal arts at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. He
is the author of "Muslims in America: A Short History" and the editor of
the "Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History." He will be online on Tuesday,
Aug. 31, at 12 p.m. ET to chat. Submit your questions and comments before
or during the discussion.
For recent Outlook coverage of the New York
mosque controversy, see Matthew Yglesias's "Anchor babies, the Ground Zero
mosque and other scapegoats," Neda Bolourchi's "A Muslim victim of 9/11:
'Build your mosque somewhere else' " and Karen Hughes's "Move the New York
City mosque, as a sign of unity.
831. 100818 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Sensitivity or Prejudice?
I fear for my Muslim friends. In the past
few weeks, emails from readers suggest an uptick in anti-Muslim sentiment.
When I recently wrote about a Muslim leader who explained why the 9/11
terrorists violated basic Islamic principles, one of the nicer correspondents
called me a “naïve idiot.”
I’ve studied world religions
for over 40 years including post-doctoral study of Islam, including in
many Muslim countries. I arranged a metro-wide interfaith service the first
Sunday after 9/11—the first time many Muslims dared come out in public
after the terrorist attacks. I chaired the Jackson County post-9/11 Diversity
Task Force which issued a 35,000-word report on our five county situation.
I led the metro-wide day-long interfaith observance of the first anniversary
of 9/11. I have many Muslim friends here and abroad.
After providing such background,
my correspondent decided I might not be a naïve idiot. We’ve agreed
to get together for coffee. I appreciate that.
At a private dinner party,
at Costco with a hotdog, at a book club meeting—everywhere people ask me
about the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. The Star’s Mary Sanchez has
addressed this and former columnist Bill Tammeus has blogged on the subject.
A mosque has
been in the area for 20 years. Christian and Jewish organizations endorsed
the project. Almost 400 Muslims were murdered on 9/11 and one of the project
leaders was himself injured in assisting first responders.
The Muslim member of the
Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council has known the couple leading the
New York mosque/community center project and their families for decades.
Just hours after the project
passed its latest hurdle with a 9-0 vote, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
himself Jewish, gave one of the most inspiring addresses on American religious
freedom I’ve ever read.
Closer to Ground Zero than
the proposed mosque is the location for the restored St. Nicholas Greek
Orthodox Church and St Paul’s Chapel (Episcopal).
While politicians and others
have twisted a project intended to build interfaith understanding into
a statement of Islamic triumphalism, the most moderate objection is based
on sensitivity to the (non-Muslim) victims.
In the past, sensitivity
to peoples’ feelings kept Jews out of Leawood and out of membership in
the Kansas City County Club.
When does sensitivity to
others’ feelings become prejudice?
Interfaith Council Jewish
alternate member Barry Speert will discuss such issues Aug. 22 at 11 am
at the Jewish Community Campus, 5801 W. 115 St., Overland Park.
NOTES:
Additional
biographical information: For its first three years, I was the coordinator
for the Christian Jewish Muslim Dialogue Group which included Rabbi Michael
Zedek of B'nai Jehudah synagogue, Muslim leader Dr Rauf Mir, Father Thom
Savage, President of Rockhurst University, Dr Robert Meneilly from Village
Presbytrian Church and other prominent Jewish, Muslim, Catholic and Protestant
leaders.
The restoration
process for St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church is currently stalled.
Newsvine
READER
COMMENT
FROM
B.M.
Thank you, Vern for your excellent article. I am grateful to live in Kansas
City, where the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council, founded by you
and David Nelson, has enriched my understanding of other faiths. I have
shared your comments on my facebook page. I have been writing about this
on facebook recently, and one of my comments echoed yours. I think, in
light of the backlash, that the organizers of the building project are
brave to continue, as there are zealots who are eager to harm them. I have
read a book by Imam Feisal Rauf, leader of the mosque which owns the site.
As I wrote on facebook, he is very moderate, very American, and highly
respected by religious scholars, such as Karen Armstrong. He is a strong
supporter of interfaith activities and strives diligently to foster greater
understanding among all faiths.
AS
OF AUG 21 ON THE STAR WEBSITE COMMENT SECTION,
9 other comments appear but most do not address the perspective of the
column itself and so no reply is offered..
J.F.
WROTE --
I
usually find your religious views too liberal for my taste however, I wanted
to write you and say that I appreciated the information that you shared
in yesterday's column. I understood from the news that this was a
somewhat Muslim neighborhood with shops, cafes, etc; however none of the
major networks had stated the fact that two other places of worship were
to be built in the area as well. In fact, I heard on the conservative news
Tuesday that the approval for the Greek Orthodox church to be rebuilt had
been denied. I had heard nothing on either side about the Episcopal Church.
This certainly puts a new slant on the Mosque being built in the neighborhood.
Why are the networks not reporting the whole story rather than just their
opinion of why/why not the mosque should not be built?
Also,
could you please provide references as to how I can verify this information
about the churches being rebuilt as well as the proposed mosque?
Another
impression that I got from the news is that the mosque is to be built on
the site of the Twin Towers, not just near it.Thank you again for an excellent
column on this subject.
VERN'S
REPLY --
News organizations rely on various sources that they can access quickly.
This story was ignited by the ADL statement. Before then, few guessed it
would draw much attention. Facts are still emerging and opinions vary widely.
It is hard to get the whole story right away from any single source.
I have put together dozens of links to news and opinions as well as my
extended statement, Mayor Bloomberg's inspiring address, and a statement
by a Muslim son of Kansas City who now works near Ground Zero. The link
for all of this is http://www.cres.org/#ADL. I also recommend Bill
Tammeus' blog for today: http://billtammeus.typepad.com/
I understood that the Port Authority had approved the rebuilding of the
Greek Orthodox Church. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Nicholas_Greek_Orthodox_Church.
The idea that the mosque was to be build on Ground Zero was a flat lie,
meant to inflame and politicize the situation. Muslims have been praying
at 51 Park for months, not at Ground Zero. They need more space. They wanted
to open it to the community with Y type facilities and an interfaith
I read things I don't agree with, but I am better informed because of it.
I admire you for doing the same, even when you disagree with what I write.
Thanks for taking the trouble to send me your concerns.
F.C.
WROTE --
I read your column quite often as I always find it quite clear and unbiased.
So when you implied that St. Nicholas had been restored at it's original
sight I was appalled. I can only hope that this action was altruistic and
not political. I would be interested in your explanation.
VERN'S
REPLY --
St
Nicholas has not yet been restored, but the LOCATION, almost identical
to where it once stood, as I understand it, for the restoration has been
approved. In the editing process, the statement became: "Closer to ground
zero than the proposed mosque is the location for the restored St. Nicholas
Greek Orthodox Church and St. Paul’s Chapel (Episcopal)."
This was not intended to be a past tense statement, but a future tense
statement indicated by "proposed," but I see that this is inadequate. The
emphasis was on LOCATION, and it is the location for what will be the restored
Church. The wording would have been clearer if the statement were, "Closer
to ground zero than the proposed mosque is the location for St. Nicholas
Greek Orthodox Church when it is restored, and St. Paul’s Chapel (Episcopal)."
The printed statement is like "The location for the new Kauffman Performing
Arts Center is near 16th and Broadway" which is correct but, I see, can
be misleading because the Center is not yet completed and open.
Thank you for holding me to the highest standard and for giving me a chance
to explain.
Please let me know if I have been clear with this apology.
F.C.
ANSWERED --
I accept your explanation and I hope in the future you will be more explicit
to we uneducated readers.
F.C.
WROTE AGAIN --
I don't believe that comparing an islamic mosque which is obviously a slap
in the face to many American with the little church is alright. That church
was established in 1919 and stood there for over 80 years until the south
tower fell on it destroying it completely. Whereas the proposed mosque
is being built by the same religion as the ones who took credit for destroying
said tower. I have read the quran and I know that for the most part islam
is a peaceful religion it is also entirely jehadist which roughly means
to subjugate. It is the only true religion and all people should only follow
allah. Jihad through peace whenever possible but if not?
VERN'S
REPLY --
My background (outlined in the column) is different than yours, perhaps,
and that is why we may see things differently.
I would hate to think that you would accept the word of Osama bin Laden
in defining Islam, or his wicked acts. Throughout most of history, Islam
has been far more tolerant of other faiths than Christianity.
If you are interested in a different view as to whether the mosque (inspired
by a Sufi) is a slap in the face, you might want to read the Bill Tammeus
blog for today: http://billtammeus.typepad.com/
I
have gathered links of information and different opinions at http://www.cres.org/#ADL
along with Mayor Bloomberg's inspiring speech and a son of KC who is Muslim
working now near Ground Zero. You will learn that Muslims were buried near
Ground Zero before the little church was built.
My understanding from studying the Qur'an, the Hadith, etc also varies
from yours.
As I say, with different backgrounds and experiences we tend to form different
opinions.
Thank you for reading my column
and taking the trouble to write.
J.P.
WROTE --
Mr Barnet you have said you have gone to seminary and have extensive study
in world religions, yet not sure what you believe.
I think it is great to have friends who are muslim, hindu, buddest but
are not these people lost in their sins, they worship a pagan god do they
not, yet you do not seem concered about their spiritual future
You have previously said the Bible does not hold final authority for you,
so I ask do you not believe that Jesus was who he said he was the True
Son of the Living God? If so how can you not want to present the
Savior to these people
There was only one interfaith meeting in the Bible with Elijah and the
prophet of baal and this did not go well for the prophets
Yes the muslims have a right to build on this site, however it would seem
that they would be sensitive to the feelings of Americans who were killed
there
,
I have never heard that there was 400 muslims killed there but unfortunately
muslims killing muslims is not news
I pray that perhaps you need to take time away to re-read the Bible, still
maintain friendships but with a great fconcern for their future
VERN'S
REPLY --
What I believe is not as important to me as I write the column as helping
others to understand our neighbor's backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints.
However, if you are interested in a statement of my faith in non-sectarian
language, you can find it at www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view.
I think you may not understand several of the faiths you mentioned as fully
as would be helpful. For example, in Buddhism, the goal is not salvation
as Christians understand it, but enlightenment with a rather specific complex
of meanings that involve the cessation, rather than the preservation, of
the self.
I would hate to think that you would accept the word of a man so wicked
as Osama bin Laden in defining Islam. You are right that Muslim fanatics
are killing more Muslims than anyone else. This is why it is all the morre
important to encourage wholesome efforts such as the proposed Islamic center
that happens to be two blocks away from Ground Zero. Let the wonderful
Muslims define their faith, not the evil ones. No group has been harmed
by 9/11 more than American Muslims. Should we not be sensitive to them?
I have taught in several seminaries, including Bible courses and church
history courses. I faithfully attend my church services. Even though I
recite the creed each Sunday, I do not know that it would be useful
for me to tell you that "Jesus was the true Son of the Living God" because
what I mean by that is problably very different from what the statement
means to you. Jesus said, By their fruits ye shall know them. I value love
and service more than the language in which different folks seek to talk
about that which is far beyond human understanding. For me, faith is rooted
in experience, not in belief statements.
Thank you for reading my column and for taking the trouble to write.
A.W.
WROTE --
Thanks for your good column about Muslims and the NY cultural center brouhaha.
I'm worried for my Muslim friends, too, and for our country in general
that people can be so easily whipped into mean-spirited frenzies while
ignoring issues that genuinely need attention.
VERN'S
REPLY --
I appreciate your note and share your concern. However, as folks learn
the facts, I think this may turn around. I've collected some good (and
bad) stuff at http://www.cres.org/#ADL and I especially encourage you with
Bill Tammeus today http://billtammeus.typepad.com/ and Sameer's amazing
response to Tom McClanahan http://www.cres.org/#Sameer. Eventually even
the politicians will wear this out.
T.F.
WROTE --
Before I begin my comment, I should point out that while I was raised and
educated in the Cathoic faith (St. Peter's, Rockhurst,Notre Dame)
, my own curiousity - probably perceived as weakness by my Catholic friends
- has lead me to a large Methodist church in Johnson County. This
is not meant as a ringing endorsement of Methodism, only an indication
of where I've been. I don't even know where I'm going. Good
intentions but life is mysterious.
I've always wondered why it is so difficult to balance belief in God and
plain common sense. Faith can be very temperamental and capable of
inspiring terrible thoughts and actions.
That's the bad side. It can also be so very relaxing and forgiving
and comforting, like a narcotic. It's the mystery in between the
two extremes that contains the grain of truth which is all we will ever
know about God.
I always enjoy reading your column.
VERN'S
REPLY --
Thank
you for the encouragement of your writing with a bit of your background
and perspective. I agree, life is mysterious! I like your way of pointing
to the place between the two extremes where we might find a grain to truth
about that which is infinitely greater than we can imagine. Thanks for
being my reader!
M.R.
WROTE --
NYC has a monument to the 1st responders to 9/11 and one to people inside
who died they will finish with one to the Islam martyrs-- some friends
of mine are upset that the inman heading the project is assoc with moslem
brotherhood
VERN'S
REPLY --
I do not know that Imam Rauf is connected with the Muslim Brotherhood as
he is a Sufi. He may have reached out to the Brotherhood, as he reaches
out to everyone, as Jesus sought the lost lamb.
I
do know about any monument to Muslim martyrs planned for New York. The
Islamic Center proposed two blocks away is not to honor martyrs but to
provide services to people of all faiths, like the Y, and to give Muslims
a place to pray. Please send me your sources so I may be better informed.
I have collected a number of pieces of information and opinion at http://www.cres.org/#ADL.
A.S.
WROTE --
. . . The
reason for me writing to you today is that I just read your article, "In
defense of a mosque near ground zero". Quite honestly, it was a very good
& well written article. It's unfortunate that most people don't realize
that Islam is a religion of peace and teaches tolerance and promotes good.
Not only Islam is misunderstood in the west but quite frankly many Muslims
in general don't understand/practice Islam in the right way.
Anyway, I wanted to extend my thanks to you for writing such a nice article
on such a hot subject. I'm sure it will make an impact on a lot of good
hearts.
VERN'S
REPLY --
. . . Thank you for your kind words about my column. . . .
D.W.
WROTE --
If you’d care to refute Frank Gaffney, Jr.’s comments, I’d certainly enjoy
seeing what you‘d like to add. I tried to e-mail forward the article, but
apparently ran into a problem. It can be viewed, along with several
comments by readers, on:
http://www.legion.org/magazine/9907/stealth-jihad
.
. . Hope that Shariah law never becomes a part of our American scene!
VERN'S
REPLY --
The information presented is in part accurate, in part terribly misleading,
in part just plain wrong. One example, in Sunni Islam alone, there are
four legal systems. I agree that the danger has not been adequately or
accurately recognized. I suggest books such as Karen Armstrong's book The
Battle for God, for starters. My brief essay on Terrorism appears at http://www.cres.org/pubs/mp05078aTerrorism.pdf
I
suggest two redcent KC blogs:
Reza
Aslan Rocks Kansas City http://revthom.blogspot.com/ Aug 18
A
case for the Islamic center: 8-19-10 http://billtammeus.typepad.com/
Thanks for seeking my opinion. If you would like a detailed analysis of
Gaffney piece, we'd have to get together for quite a while.
As a former member of the armed forces myself, I thank you for sharing
the duty and joy of service to American freedom.
L.Y.
WROTE --
Bravo!! Thank you from all of us with hearts and minds. You
have written the words I wish I could speak so eloquently. . . .
VERN'S
REPLY --
. . . Thank you for taking the trouble to let me know my column was of
some help.. . .
D.V.
WROTE--
I'm sure you've heard comments on your article both pro and con.
I
would urge you to watch the following video,
please.
VERN'S
REPLY --
OK, I watched the video which contains numerous inaccuracies and an amazing
hate-filled ignorance of Islam, what happened on 9/11, and the actual situation
in New York. There is no mosque proposed for Ground Zero (your Subject
heading to this email). The Islamic Center (like a Y, open to anyone) is
two blocks away. I think the sanctity of the site is worsened by the sex
parlors and could only be improved by the Islamic Center.
Now since I spent time obliging you, I'd like you please to read the Bill
Tammeus blog http://billtammeus.typepad.com/ for 8-19-10. Bill lost a beloved
nephew on 9/11. And Jewish Mayor Bloomberg's inspiring address after the
9-0 vote in favor of the Islamic Center: http://www.cres.org/#Bloomberg
Thank
you.
I've been to Cordoba. Inside the mosque -- inside -- is a Catholic Cathedral.
That is triumphalism.
You
are right -- I've studied this situation carefully. I have about 50 links
to information and various viewpoints at http://www.cres.org/#ADL.
Thanks for reading my column, sending me the link to the video, and for
taking the trouble to be concerned. Your fellow citizen,
M.W.
WROTE--
Let me start of by saying how much I enjoy reading Faith&Beliefs.
Your world view seems to be much more compatible with mine than does that
of many other of the religious writers, specifically those with ititials
BG.
I was especially interested in your column today, as well as the editorial
by Ross Douthat. Both went a long way to explain the complexities
of inter-faith understanding between Christian and Muslim beliefs.
I am not so presumptious as to think that you have the time, or inclination,
to answer every email with a lengthy and though out response, but if I
am fortunate enough to get one from you, and it enables me to gain greater
insight, I promise to share it with all who are willing to listen to me.
Very often I hear members of the Muslim faith discuss Islam, and almost
without exception they say that the Koran discourages random violence in
the furtherance of Jihad, and that Islam is a caring and peaceful faith.
Yet this is at odds with what is described as Islamic radicalism, and in
portraying the genesis of that radicalism, Islamic schools and Mosques
are generally cited as the source of indoctrination. These two views
seem diametrically opposed, but the two positions that I sense are zealotry
or indifference. There does not seem to be strong opposition to radicalism
within the Muslim community, at least none that is publicly verbalized.
What I get from the side of indifference is tacit approval and an unwillingness
to speak in opposition. Thus, I remain unconvinced that Islam is
a religion of peaceful resolution to conflict.
Could it be because Islam is a religion with several branches, and no real
central authority to set policy or interpret doctrine, for example as the
Catholic Church is organized? Or, as my greatest concern, is it a
duplicitous philosophy that is willing to say one thing while doing another
in furtherance of a goal that may not be in the best interests of anyone
not a Muslim?
Any thoughts? Thanks . . . .
VERN'S
REPLY --
I
apologize in being tardy in replying. Thank you very much for your kind
words about my column.
Let me see if I can make some comments about Islam that might be helpful
to the concerns you raise.
Islam, with roughly one and a half billion people, is an extremely complex
and varied faith, from the peace-loving African American Muslims who for
decades have worked to improve their neighborhoods, to the fantatical Wahhabi
Islam in a nation that the West created and which we support with our addiction
to oil, to the richly inflected forms in the largest Muslim country in
the world, Indonesia.
Normatively, compared with Christianity, Islam is not so much a religion
of beliefs as it is correct practices. But what is correct? There are,
just in Sunni Islam, four traditional legal schools. There is no "pope-like"
authority that can speak for more than a tiny fraction of the world's Muslims.
In my opinion, we should not believe someone as wicked as Osama bin Laden
when he seeks to describe Islam, but rather the overwhelmingly virtuous
Muslims who practice good will even though the US has done such things
as overthrow a democratic government (Iran) and replaced it with a dictator,
the Shah.
Jihad means struggle, and according to Muhammad himself, the greater jihad
is the struggle within each person to do the right thing. As I hinted in
my column for July 28 http://www.cres.org/star/star2010.htm#828 , war in
Islam has much stricter rules than the doctrine of a Just War in Christianity,
about which I wrote 2008 March 19 http://www.cres.org/star/star2008.htm#706
and which was certainly violated by the US in the Bush 2 Iraq War.
Mosques often have schools attached (as do Catholic churches), and in some
countries some of these schools are used to promote political and
even military purposes. While this does not represent Islam as a
whole, it is a serious concern and more energy needs to be spent in replacing
bad education with good.
There is very strong opposition to violence in the Islamic world. Radical
Muslims have killed more Muslims than Christians. But the media and political
interests don't report statements protesting violence as much as focusing
on violence itself. I urge you to consider the vastly greater number of
legitimate and respected Muslim leaders, here and world wide, who condemned
the attacks, compared with the irresponsible few who condoned such actions.
I stood with the Interfaith Council the morning of 9/11, and before the
press the Muslims (along with everyone else) emphatically condemned the
attacks. But was that in the media? No, except for one radio station. For
world-wide condemnation, see http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
and other sites.
The charge that once was leveled against the Jews, that of "perfidy," is
now, for political reasons, being leveled against Muslims. It is true that,
during persecution from Christians after 1492 when the tolerant Muslim
rule ended in Spain, Jews sometimes lied and said they were Christians
when threatened by authorities. It is true that the tiniest fraction of
Muslims might lie for some purpose. But out of context texts cited in both
cases contrast with the scrupulous dealings most Muslims have with each
other and with non-Muslims.
I have many Muslim friends here and abroad. No one has ever sought to convert
me. On the contrary, my tradition has been cherished and honored, as is
historically the pattern, with few exceptions.
I recommend Karen Armstrong's little book, ISLAM: A BRIEF HISTORY. It contains
a useful chronology and glossary as well as a fair assessment of the history
of this great faith.
I do hope these comments are helpful.Thank you for reading my column and
for writing me.
I.M.M.
wrote --
It is the very nature of ideas/faith based in absolutes to come into conflict
with each other unless the defining absolutes are resolved into something
congruous with each other.
"A mosque near the Twin Towers site is inappropriate for the same reason
that a church group picketing a funeral is inappropriate. It juxtaposes
mixed motivations in an environment that will always stimulate discordant
feelings and actions."
I wrote that comment on your recent column in an attempt to illustrate
that you cannot promote resolution at a defining example of discordant
faiths. Although it is an eventual solution to these kinds of events,
sowing seeds of Interfaith Growth using such a site as a pulpit is self
defeating and will not germinate on such tainted soil. If interfaith
ideas grow and bear fruit sufficiently to someday crack the substrate of
such a significant event in American History, it will be the overall growth,
understanding, and acceptance of each other that finally bears fruit on
this sterile spot. Attempts to transplant something living into that
kind of place where it is not able to survive is not only futile, it is
harmful to the greater body of Tolerance in trying to force human will
in opposition with others, regardless how beneficial or healing the intention
of that will may be.
Let's not go planting olive trees in mud still black with blood.
We can however point to that place as a prime reason to plant olive trees
where they WILL grow in the hopes that someday that wounded ground might
heal and bear fruit. THAT would prove that we are beginning to grow..
Together..
Have a good weekend. I will be out Saturday morning, probably at
the intersection of Vivion and North Oak accepting donations for the March
of Dimes and Bikers for Babies. We will be at 4 or 5 intersections
from 9 or so until around 2 unless it gets to hot to be safe for our volunteers.
VERN'S
REPLY --
Thank you for your opinion. In my view, given the history of this project,
the best place for it is at 45-51 Park. I have written extensively under
the 50 or so links at http://www.cres.org/#ADL. There you will also find
Jewish Mayor Bloomberg's address following the 9-0 vote in favor of the
Islamic Center, and a statement by a Muslim son of Kansas City who works
near Ground Zero. I especially commend Bill Tammeus whose nephew was killed
on 9/11 and whose blog http://billtammeus.typepad.com/ presents
"A case for the Islamic center: 8-19-10," with his reasons for saying "the
Ground Zero area is exactly the right place for this kind of Islamic presence."
I find your comparison of a place of worship and respect open to the entire
community to picking a funeral like comparing a generous reception to a
jailing.
Thanks for your good work on behalf of others.
V.A.
WROTE--
I am surprised by how many people are opposed to building a mosque close
to ground zero. My husband, to my surprise said "I don't think it
is appropriate to build a mosque there". I argued as long as people
obey zoning standards they should be allowed to build what they want...
this is America, if it were a church would you have a problem with it,
and he said "Yes, unless it is a house of faith that accomodates Muslims,
Christians, and Jews, I would have a problem with it", considering the
local. I wanted to pass this idea on. Has anyone proposed a
universal house of worship like this? Seems it would be a great way
to bring people of different backgrounds together. I have no idea
how to build it, but it should have separate worship spaces for each of
the three major religions. (maybe even space for Buddhists and Hindu
worshipers), and then a common foyer for everyone to pass through on their
way to their worship house.
VERN'S
REPLY --
The
goal of the Center is multifaith. The Imam, much respected, was a frequent
guest at the Bush White House and is now oversees seeking to build support
for America. How can American Muslim soldiers answer the Afghans when they
ask why so many people are opposed? The place is 2 1/2 blocks away from
the edge of Ground Zero. In between are sex parlors, gambling outlets.
In the neighborhood are synagogues, churches, a Buddhist center, etc. The
center went through community building and zoning processes, all approved.
Most people have no idea what is going on and politicians are inflaming
the situation. Jewish Mayor Bloomberg gave a wonderful speech in favor,
many faith leaders are now lending their support, and Bill Tammeus argues
this is the best spot in the world for a mosque. You'll find plenty of
information and different points of view in the links at http://www.cres.org/#ADL
where you'll also find s powerful statement by a Muslim son of Kansas City
who now works near Ground Zero. I especially like the items I've starred,
including the blog by Bill Tammeus.
To summarize --
SECURITY
1. Local zoning and other requirements, including community consultation,
have approved the project. To make a local issue national and international
endangers our security these ways:
1a. Muslim soldiers and sailors in nation-building roles are subject to
taunts from the very Muslim populations we seek to help.
1b. Domestic tranquility is threatened by encouraging other locales to
raise religious objections to mosques in their communities and encourages
plans such as the Sept 11 Burn a Qur'an Day.
1c. It damages the image of the United States most with the very groups
whose help we need to succeed in building security against terrorism.
DISCOURAGING MODERATE ISLAM
2. It defames Muslim leaders who have worked for decades for interfaith
understanding, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf himself has been used by both
the Bush and Obama administrators to build understanding abroad and was
a frequent guest in the Bush White House. He appears in such popular books
as The Faith Club, one of the three writers of which is from the KC metro
area. His own book, What's Right with Islam: a New Vision for Muslims and
the West, has been widely praised. The criticism conflates Islam with terrorism.
IGNORANT ARGUMENTS
Specious arguments perpetuate ignorance and oppression.
3a. Giving too much weight to "sensitivity" begs the question of "being
sensitive to whom?" This is like saying to Jews (as was said) we have folks
who are sensitive about Jews, so they can't buy in Leawood, or be members
of the Kansas City Country Club. It is like saying We have white folks
who are sensitive to riding the buses with black folks up front, so they
have to sit in the back of the bus. No group has suffered more since 9/11
than Muslims. Muslim slaves are buried nearby. The demand that the mosque
be moved parallels the "wait" demand made on Martin Luther King, Jr, who
said, "I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was 'well
timed' in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease
of segregation. For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in
the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity."
3b. The "defiling Holy Ground" argument is weakened by porn shops, bars,
gambling outlets, and other sleazy enterprises closer than the 51Park Place.
3c. The charge of Islamic triumphalism belies ignorance of the nature
of the building, both appearance and context, and the project mangers have
already compromised by changing the name from "Cordoba House" (uses as
a weapon be people ignorant of its meaning) to "Park51," its address.
3d. Muslims, like folks of other faiths, work in the area. There are, within
the immediate neighborhood, sites for several Christian Churches, several
synagogues, a Buddhist Center. The Muslims have been praying on their private
property for some time already; they need an expanded facility which would
be open to the community, like the Y.
3e. Questions about financing for the project, raised as if there are no
answers, exemplify McCarthyism and presumptive questions like "When did
you stop beating your wife?"
In his blog for 8-19-10 Bill Tammeus argues that "the
area near Ground Zero in New York is exactly the right place to locate
an Islamic center" -- http://billtammeus.typepad.com/
Thanks for writing. let me know if this helps. My column for next Wednesday
is about sacred space.
J.B.
WROTE--
I wanted to let you know how much I admire you for speaking out boldly
on the issue of the negative response Americans in general have to Muslims.
We all have to keep working to educate, but sometimes the hearts and minds
of others refuse to open. Still I know we will continue to try. .
. .
VERN'S
REPLY --
I appreciate your encouragement and your work for understanding.
J.S.
WROTE --
Vern, just want you to know you are appreciated for being a calm, reasoned,
peacemaker--especially in these vitriolic times when religion and politics
seem to be one and the same.
As for the mosque situation, yesterday morning on NPR a commentator stated
that while plans for building the prayer room/community center were announced
last fall, it didn't become a hot-button issue until outsiders began making
hostile statements recently. He said people of manhattan and NY are quite
accepting. Sounds like the radical right-wing to me.
A commentary by Ross Douthat (NYT) in today's paper does shed some light
on the situation--if anyone cares to be enlightened.
It seems like another situation similar to same-sex marriage in California.
Things were going smoothly until the Mormon Church began it's campaign
to bring an end to it. Millions of dollars of church money and time and
support were spent denying gay American citizens equal rights. In my opionion,
Christ himself would lead the charge for equal rights.
Sadly, so many of these hot-button issues are fueled by religious bigots.
So much hatred being expounded by Christians that I can easily understand
Anne Rice's announcement that she was giving up Christianity. Why
aren't REAL Christian pastors and followers speaking out. Until they
do, evil will continue to corrupt our wonderful nation.
I have listened to Religion on the Line Sunday mornings for many years,
but when John Perk joined the group, the hate and division began.
His comments on gays a week ago were absolutely dispicable. Chuck
(Buddhist) and our beloved Rabbi Zedek were quick to defend them, however,
and to gently condem John's words. Many Sunday mornings it is difficult
to listen to the deeply religious espousing hate and bigotry in the name
of their religion.
Again, thanks for your input and your voice in the wilderness.
VERN'S
REPLY --
Thanks for your kind words. I did not hear the NPR report, but I know it
is accurate. It seems that the Antidefamation League, a Jewish group which
has a long and noble tradition of defending religious liberty and seeking
to heal prejudice, has been subverted. From examining its website section
on Israel, it seems to be more in line now with the wealthy radical right-wing
AIPAC rather than peace groups within the Jewish community like J Street.
It looks like an effort to discredit Obama's work to bridge the divide
between the Israelis and the Palestinians and generally weaken the President.
My heart is broken. the Leagues' carefully
worded original statement was the match that ignited this controversy
by pleading "sensitivity" on July 28, less than a month ago.
While the New York Time's Ross
Douthat column certainly is thoughtful, I prefer the column that appeared
the same day by the Washington Post's conservative columnist Michael
Gerson.
I've collected dozens of articles about the subject at http://www.cres.org/#park51
I
especially recommend the four items in the off-white box above the main
list of links.
Thank you also for writing me about the recent Religion on the Line program.
I am sorry to hear the problems and gladdened that Rabbi Zedek, a truly
remarkable voice, and Lama Stanford, who has done so much for interfaith
understanding, were able to respond.
I appreciate your taking the time to write me. Thank you for reading my
column!
J.B.
WROTE --
Thank you so much for your continuing dialogue in the Kansas City Star
re our sensitivities and prejudices.
I totally believe that education and getting to know each other is the
key to acceptance and learning to get along. Only then will we realize
we are more alike than we are different.
In this regard I will lead a study of The Faith Club at our Disciples Women's
Ministry group at First Christian Church North Kansas City for 12 months
commencing September 13. The writers' style lends itself to a readers'
theater approach and easy participation by all attendees.
You probably know the book well, but in the invent you missed it in the
stacks, it is the story of three young mothers (Muslim, Christian &
Jew) getting together after 9/11 to write a children's book to highlight
the connections between their religions. And the project nearly derails,
because of their misunderstandings. The Christian mother, Suzanne
Oliver, grew up here in Kansas City.
May God continue to bless you in your interfaith work.
VERN'S
REPLY --
Please forgive my tardy reply. I'm still working my way through the emails
this week! But I'm especially grateful for yours because of your plan to
lead a study of THE FAITH CLUB, which, as I recall, includes references
to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. I had the pleasure of visiting with them three
years ago and I'll be bold to attach my photo with them!
I would be grateful to hear from you about the 12-month study your group
is making of the book. Is there some way you can take a measure of attitudes
before and after?
Thank you for your generous words and your own work building understanding
among people of the world's faiths!
K.R.
WROTE --
Mr. Barnet, thank you for your 8/18/10 column regarding the controversy
surrounding the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. I cannot imagine
that Americans would have an issue if a group of Christians were responsible
for the 9/11 attack, and a group wanted to erect a Christian church in
that same spot. I believe the mosque controversy stems from religious
bigotry and ignorance, and it makes those of us who claim to desire to
be more Christ-like look very bad. I greatly appreciate your learned
words of wisdom on this issue, and I pray that your words will touch the
hearts and minds of those who will punish good and decent Muslims for the
cowardly acts of extremists. History (both American and World) demonstrates
that certain Christians have also engaged in cowardly acts of terror, and
I know I don't want to be condemned for their acts. Thank you again,
Mr. Barnet.
VERN'S
REPLY --
Please forgive my tardy reply. I'm still working my way through the emails
this week!
I do appreciate your writing! As I Christian, I am ashamed that my faith
was used to murder thousands of black people as the Bible was recited,
crosses were burning, and men in hoods rejoiced, and that Christians raided
and killed Indians for their lands. But forgiveness is the way. If we want
safety, the last thing we need to do is embarrass our Muslim soldiers who
are trying to present a favorable picture of the US as they seek to help
rebuild other countries.
I've put Mayor Bloomberg's inspiring address on my website, along with
Bill Tammeus explaining why the Islamic Center should be built as planned,
and the thoughts of a remarkable Muslim son of Kansas City now working
near Ground Zero on my website, http://www.cres.org/#park51.
Again, I appreciate your reading my column and responding so thoughtfully.
830. 100811 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Episcopal 'servants' moving on
Complete texts of interviews
follow.
Who is a minister? What is a bishop? From
different ends of the career telescope, two Episcopalians, one a bishop-elect,
the other a bishop retiring, see the answer to both questions in servanthood.
After six distinguished years
as dean of Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral, the Very Rev. Terry White,
was elected June 5 as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Kentucky where
he will be consecrated Sept. 25.
White told me, “Jesus said
that he came not to be served, but to serve. Servanthood is at the heart
of our call as the baptized community.”
Retiring in March, the Rt.
Rev. Barry Howe, Bishop of the Diocese of West Missouri, agreed that “all
are ministers of the Church. The laity are to represent Christ in their
daily lives” and in the life of the Church as servants.
“The Bishop is only different
in the sense of being the chief pastor in a diocese, to guard the Church’s
faith, unity and discipline, and to ordain others for carrying out the
sacramental ministry of the Church.”
As servants, all people in
an Episcopal diocese have a part in choosing their bishop. Howe said the
process “comes from the people, and not from any ‘decree from above.’”
He said ministry includes
serving those hurt by “the evils of wealth and power used to promote selfish
goals” that “separate peoples, causing injustice and enslavement” to the
end that “God’s love is known and celebrated.”
Similarly White said, “The
collective wealth of the nations comprise more than enough resources to
ensure peace, justice and dignity for all, and heal mother earth. We must
set aside our need for control, our sense of entitlement, and our selfishness,
that we might open our hearts and minds to all our sisters and brothers.”
White added, “A great privilege
over the last six years has been to work closely with a bishop who valued
the unique ministry of the Cathedral as a parish church, the Mother Church
for the diocese, and a house of prayer for all people at the heart of Kansas
City.
“Bishop Howe’s pastoral commitment
to his priests and deacons, and his consistent call for all the baptized
to love and serve their neighbors, are but two aspects of the episcopate
I pray I, too, can model as I serve the clergy and people of the Diocese
of Kentucky in the years ahead,” White said.
In a farewell message, Michael
Thomas, former senior warden of the Cathedral, wrote to White of his ministry,
“In an age of shameless self-promotion and self-aggrandizement, you are
a refreshing exception. We will never know with what constancy you have
interceded with God on our behalf, but we know we have been blessed because
of it.”
EMAIL INTERVIEWS -- RESPONSES
TO QUESTIONS
about the Eucharist, roles
of laity, priest, dean and bishop; about how an Episcopal bishop is chosen,
about the Cathedral, about the work of the church and the future of religion,
BISHOP
HOWE: 1. The roles of the ministers of the Church are summarized
very adequately in our Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer. What
is absolutely essential to understand is that all are ministers of the
Church. The laity are to represent Christ in their daily lives; and
according to the gifts given to them, to carry on Christ’s work of reconciliation
in the world; and to take their place in the life, worship, and governance
of the Church. The Bishop is only different in the sense of being
the chief pastor in a diocese, to guard the faith and unity and discipline
of the Church, and to ordain others for carrying out the sacramental ministry
of the Church. A priest of presbyter is to share in the overseeing
of the Church with the Bishop as a pastor, preacher of the Gospel, and
one who administers the sacraments of the Church.
2. The selection
of a Bishop does indeed begin with all the people in a Diocese. A
group of laity and clergy are chosen as a Search Committee, and they do
all the work in confidence leading up to the announcing of several candidates
for election. The election then takes place by lay and clergy electors
from each congregation. Both the clergy and the laity must agree
by majority votes in separate ballots. It is a process that comes
from the people, and not from any ‘decree from above.’ In fact, the
retiring Bishop is not involved at all, except to preside at the electing
convention.
3. The
major opportunity in the present and the future for all Christians is to
focus upon the central mission exemplified by Jesus Christ in his ministry.
That mission is to work together as a community in serving those who are
less able to deal with the powers and forces of the world that can be so
destructive. In ministering to these people, the Church identifies
the evils of wealth and power used to promote selfish goals, and
the evils of destructive actions that separate peoples, causing injustice
and enslavement of so many. When the true mission is carried out,
lives are transformed and the awareness of God’s love is known and celebrated.
DEAN
WHITE: 1. In the Eucharist, the life of the Risen Christ nourishes
each disciple, and through each believer, flows through the Church. Jesus
said that the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve. Servanthood
is at the heart of our call as the baptized community, and indeed, the
Cathedral's commitment to be a servant church is one of the community's
greatest strengths.
2. A great
privilege over the last six years has been to work closely with a bishop
who valued the unique ministry of the cathedral as a parish church, the
mother church for the diocese, and a house of prayer for all people at
the heart of Kansas City. Bishop Barry Howe's pastoral commitment
to his priests and deacons, and his consistent call for all the baptized
to love and serve their neighbors, are but two aspects of the episcopate
I pray I too can model as I serve the clergy and people of the Diocese
of Kentucky in the years ahead. I have enjoyed a wonderful relationship
as dean with my bishop, and I look forward to having the same relationship
with the dean of my cathedral in Louisville.
3. Episcopalians,
Christians, people of all faiths, and all people of goodwill, have both
the opportunity and means to embrace the greatest opportunity in history.
The collective wealth of the nations comprise more than enough resources
to eradicate hunger, provide clean drinking water, ensure peace and justice
and dignity for every human being, and heal mother earth. In order to achieve
these goals, we must set aside our need for control, our sense of entitlement,
and our selfishness, that we might open our hearts and minds to all our
sisters and brothers. For Christians, this means to empty ourselves as
Christ emptied himself on the Cross. If we are to be great in the Kingdom
of God, we must become servants. Humility is perhaps the single greatest
virtue the church catholic must nurture if we are to make God's vision
for humanity a reality. I say again, we have the opportunity and
resources. Have we the will? I think we do, especially when
I look at the youngest generation, who is not only the Church of the future,
but the Church today.
A FAREWELL MESSAGE
FORMER
SENIOR WARDEN MICHAEL THOMAS: Terry, As you move to your
next calling as a bishop of the Church, you leave behind experiences that
we will always identify with you. For me, every time I hear of a hole-in-one,
I will think only of the one I witnessed. In Bible study when I see the
tribes of Israel recounted, I will look with amusement for that lost tribe
you identified wandering aimlessly amongst us. And of course, every
time I see someone struggling to pull their life together in the face of
loss or failure, I will remember with what great compassion, discretion
and deliberate care you ministered to your parishioners and your staff.
Montaigne wrote that
"There are few men who would dare place in evidence the secret requests
they make of God." In an age of shameless self-promotion and self-aggrandizement,
you are a refreshing exception. We will never know with what constancy
you have interceded with God on our behalf, but we know we have been blessed
because of it and we thank you for it. The people of Kentucky have
chosen a Churchman to lead them. Do not forget that you have friends in
Kansas City who are praying that your success there will lift the whole
Church. Godspeed, friend...To the Whites!
READER
COMMENT from D.
Thank you for such a nice article on Bishop Howe and Dean White. Epsicopal
servants are often unnoticed, and this was a very nice way of acknowledging
these two men. One story you might enjoy about Bishop Howe: For the past
several years, the youth of the diocese have participated in "Missionpalooza".
We stay at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Westport from Tuesday evening
through Sunday afternoon, and during the days groups of teens and adults
go to various sites in Kansas City to serve those who are struggling in
different ways. Bishop and Mary Howe are usually there one night, and for
the past few years, have helped to serve dinner to the teens who have been
out all day serving others. I think that's a strong statement about how
they feel about serving. Many people have trouble seeing the good in teens,
more have trouble serving them. This bishop serves them. He is a great
role model for each of us. Thanks.
829. 100804 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
United in selfless love
I like the premium wedding, the full celebration
of a couple’s commitment in the company of their families and friends.
But this was a budget wedding.
I was honored to officiate, and after the potluck reception I was honored
to help take out the trash. That’s how good I felt about it.
The young couple had planned
an outdoor affair for their 100 guests, but you know what happened. When
the skies opened, the groom skillfully led his buddies to rearrange the
chairs and tables in the reception facility so the wedding could take place
inside.
Weddings planned for the
summer, especially outdoors, should be short but complete. You want the
wedding to sparkle, but not from beads of sweat.
I had met the couple once
some years ago for chai. Now, eight years into their relationship, they
are husband and wife.
Nowadays, no matter how much
brides love their fathers, they often resist the idea of being “given away”
as if they were property. So I recommended, and the couple agreed, that
I would ask, “Who presents this woman to be married to this man and blesses
their love?” The dad or mom or entire family can respond, “We do.”
Then I asked, “Who presents
this man to be married to this woman and blesses their love?” with a parallel
response.
With same-sex couples in
states where such marriages are not legally recognized, I suggest the phrase
“united with” in a similar formula.
In much of the last
2000 years, weddings had little to do with romance, but we’ve come to expect
an affair of the heart. Whether union, marriage or some other word is used
to describe the commitment, the idea of two becoming one is tricky.
On one hand, the couple remain
two people. A shallow notion that each can satisfy all the needs of the
other can be neurotic, certainly co-dependent, even idolatrous and sinful.
Still, the ideal expressed
in Genesis 2:24, that two shall be “one flesh” is what many couples hope
for.
In a reading often used at
weddings, Kahlil Gibran counsels, “let each one of you be alone, even as
the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.”
On this occasion, however,
the couple chose a poem by Jalaluddin Rumi, the Sufi, describing bliss:
“You and I sitting on the verandah, apparently two, but one in soul, .
. . you and I unselfed . . . .”
This is the mystic’s vision,
a love in which one empties oneself for the other, as when in God we are
“unselfed,” completely open to the divine and thus find fulfillment. For
then, paradoxically, in selfless wedded love, our larger identity and our
eternal nature is revealed.
READER COMMENT
GABRIELMICHAEAL
wrote on 8/4/2010 --
“The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental
life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of
MEN AND WOMEN in the sacrament of marriage." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
In Theology of the Body John Paul II relates that God is a communion of
love and that we are destined to share in that exchange of love. God imprinted
in our bodies and sexuality the call to participate in a "created version"
of His eternal "exchange of love." God created us MALE AND FEMALE so that
we could image the love within the Trinity by becoming a sincere gift to
each other. Then sexual love becomes an image of the giving and receiving
love in the heart or inner life of the Trinity. This understanding of marital
intimacy helps us appreciate John Paul II's view that human sexuality within
marriage is far greater than one can imagine.
In addition to imaging the Trinity, sexual love is also meant to image
the union of God with humanity. Speaking of the communion of MAN AND WOMAN
and the life they get in marriage, John Paul II writes, "In this entire
world there is not a more perfect, more complete image of God, Unity and
Community. There is no other human reality which corresponds more, humanly
speaking, to that divine mystery" (12/30/81).
828. 100728 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Knowledge conquers fear
A recent column about diversity within
Christianity and other faiths drew some vehement responses.
One critic wrote that “the
IRS recognizes well over 2000 different ‘Christian’ churches.” He said
this means “at least 1999 churches” are wrong. He thinks diversity is harmful.
An official with the IRS,
Michael Devine, told me the IRS has no such list.
On the other hand, Imam Ahmed
El-Sherif embraced religious diversity as he led a class about his Muslim
faith at Pine Ridge Presbyterian Church recently.
He quoted the Qur’an 49:13:
“We have made you different nations and tribes that you might know one
another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the most righteous.”
The church invited him to
present a six-part series Sunday mornings through Aug. 22.
The class asked me to report
why he said the 9/11 terrorists were un-Islamic. Here are three of his
points:
*Anyone who commits suicide
“exits Islam.” El-Sherif told of a tragic case in which a Muslim student
committed suicide. He offered pastoral care to the grieving family, but
since the student, by his act, could no longer be considered Muslim, El-Sherif
could not provide an Islamic burial. When the terrorists killed themselves
they left their faith, no matter how they might have been led to think
about their horrific acts.
*In Islam, covenants may
not be violated. A visa is a covenant that one will visit a country
in peace. The terrorists violated this rule.
*In Islam, only defensive
war is permitted. Even then, non-combatants may not be harmed and property
may not be destroyed. Innocent people, including many Muslims, were murdered
in aggression on 9/11. The damage was astounding.
The word Islam actually means
the peace that comes from the submission to God. The terrorists violated
God’s peace.
Brian Van Batavia chairs
the church’s committee arranging the series. He said that “in order to
love our neighbor, as Christ commanded, . . . we are to understand and
appreciate them. Fear is caused when there is a lack of knowledge. Learning
about other faiths helps us grow as Christians, and then we learn to love
them.”
He noted that many folks
have questions about Islam arising from “various sources of misinformation.”
He said it can be “hard for people to get past preconceived notions about
others.” He hopes this series “will help breakdown some of these barriers.”
Increasingly churches like
Pine Ridge are replacing the ignorance arising from our fear of diversity
with knowledge and neighborliness.
EMAIL INTERVIEW WITH BRIAN
VAN BATAVIA
1.
Why are folks at Pine Ridge Presbyterian Church interested in learning
about other faiths? Are there ways in which learning about other faiths
deepens one's own, or develops a sense of community, or a discovery of
commonalities or enjoyment of differences?
In
general terms, we want to love our neighbor. The Adult Education Committee,
for which I am the Chairperson, tries to provide meaningful, educational,
and Christ-centered studies that will help lead us as Christians to a greater
understanding of our own relationship with Christ.
2.
What special interests or concerns may folks have in learning about Islam?
Obviously
the U.S.¹s recent history with populations from Muslim nations has
caused this particular study to raise questions within the church populations.
Media outlets and various sources of mis-information have fostered these
issues. This is the point; I hope these questions are answered. Sometimes
it is hard for people to get past preconceived notions about others. Hopefully,
this study will help breakdown some of these barriers for these small parts
of the larger populations.
3.
You mentioned that last summer Rabbi Alan Cohen led a series on Judaism
and some folks were surprised to learn that there are different forms of
that faith, disagreements within Judaism -- folks were surprised because
they assumed other faiths were uniform for all followers of that faith.
Do I remember this correctly? And would you say this in itself was
an important thing to learn?
Rabbi
Cohen was the gateway to the study on Islam. His sincere love was
easily recognized by anyone that heard him speak last summer. I may have
been the person that learned the most by his presence. It is vital that
we as Christians, and any citizen, are mindful that every faith is open
to the interpretation and practices of each individual follower. I do not
agree with every part of my own faith with my own very smart wife! Just
as there are many groups in the U.S. that claim to be Christian, but conduct
themselves with non-Christian values, other faiths have the same types
of extremists. We as Christians hope that we are recognized by our love.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Islamic rules
of defensive war require that an enemy in retreat may not be pursued, even
if the enemy retains the capability of lauching a further attack. Pre-emptive
strikes are forbidden.
The column
was cited on Muslim
World TV and Religion
Review and World
News.
READER RESPONSES
BEN_YAHOODwrote
on 7/28/2010 --
Sigh. There you go again, Vern, whitewashing Islam. I guess you think no
one has ever heard of the "Muslim conquest," or knows how to use Google
...
CHOTOCK
wrote on 7/31/2010 --
According
to your article here, Muhammed was not a Muslim, since he, and his sons,
waged offensive wars to spread Islam. Very interesting
VERN'S
REPLY --
Regarding
the previous comment: Muhammad had no sons who survived childhood. According
to the Qur'an, Muhammad was extremely reluctant to fight and was a master
diplomat, entering Mecca after the Hegira without any blood being shed.
The battles he did lead are regarded, in context, as defensive. Islam spread
rapidly. Within a century after his death, Islam spread from the Iberian
peninsula in the West past the Indus River in the East. Some credit the
notion that there is but one God which assisted both in religious toleration
and the fantastic exchange of culture and learning with the integrating
power of the one-God idea. For a fair and interesting summary of this early
history (and through the 20th Century), I recommend Karen Armstrong's little
book, ISLAM: A SHORT HISTORY. Also, THE COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO ISLAM
provides a view of its history.
JIM
HOEL writes --
To Vern Barnet: Somehow I think your article left out a lot about the Imam
El-Sherif's beliefs regarding suicide.
Maybe you and the "diverse" Presbyterians are being showing your "ignorance"
by believing and publishing the dis-information in your column.
Don't you think that in the period since 911 we would have heard that Islam
abhors suicide?
All we see and hear is "kill the infidel" and "give us Sharia Law" while
Islam in general remains silent on the fact that their "terrorist brothers"
are breaking any laws, let alone the tenets of Islam!
Your column is a bunch of tripe designed to lull Christians and other "infidel"
faiths into believing this drivel while the Muslims quietly take over the
world.
You don't get it; just like the rest of the world. This topic is no about
diversity, it is about reality.
In the least you could have said that this is just what the Islamists want
us to believe.
If you want your own copy of a sermon entitled "What's Really In A Mosque",
send me your mailing address.
Then you might realize that "diversity" is another word for "roll over
and die!", and then maybe you can "replace the ignorance" in your mind.
We will not forget 911!
You should be ashamed to write and publish this garbage trying to justify
the atrocity.
Blue Springs, MO, Retired Person, jhoel6@comcast.net
VERN'S
REPLY --
Dear Jim, Please remember that there are extremists claiming to be Christian,
Jewish, Hindu, etc. The overwhelming Muslim world condemned the 9/11 attacks,
but that is not in the news.
I have traveled repeatedly in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well
as visiting Muslim sites in this country. I have studied Islam both as
part of my doctoral preparation and during my 40-year career in the ministry.
I have dozens of dear Muslim friends in Kansas City, some of who save Christians
and Jews every day in their work as physicians and are part of the civic
leadership. Some Kansas City Muslim families have been Americans for generations.
They abhor violence. As founder of the KC Interfaith Council, I also have
many, many friends of other faiths as well.
The biggest problem I have with your email, Jim, is that mu column explicitly
condemns the atrocity (and provides three reasons of many reasons why "The
terrorists violated God’s peace." but you are obviously misreading
it because you say I am "trying to justify the atrocity."
When someone writes me and turns what I have written into the opposite,
I wonder if that person has had a terrible personal experience or has been
afflicted by narrow propaganda. In either case, I am sorry.
On the other hand, folks who lost relatives in 9/11, still grieving, who
are Christian, have followed the teachings of Christ and, while cherishing
the memories of those so violated by the viciousness of 9/11, seek to find
ways to heal rather than deepen misunderstandings.
I would also like you to know that I led the city-wide day-long observance
of the first anniversary of 9/11. The loss I experienced personally in
2001 will stay with me forever. However, while protection of our nation
is necessary, we lose our ability to protect ourselves unless we accurately
assess the enemy, and that cannot be done without making the kinds of distinctions
you seem reluctant to make.
My mailing address is below and I will read the sermon you wish to send
me. But please know I consider myself to be quite informed and as an unusually
experienced citizen. I can identify unfounded and unChristian prejudice
and hatred a mile away.
RESPONSES
INTERSPERSED (Vern)
JIM
HOEL wites again --
OK. Here we go.
I've now mailed the CD, you should get it by Friday.
Please listen to it (63 minutes), and arrive at the conclusion that the
good pastor didn't see or hear the things that he stood in front of his
audience and attested to (Tounge-in-cheek).
I do understand that there are good Muslims doing good work.
Just please don't try and foist the notions like your Imam does. Let him
write his own opinion editorials. You should not give credence to falsehood.
I HAVE KNOWN AHMED EL-SHERIF FOR MANY YEARS. HE IS A MAN OF INTEGRITY WHO
HAS RECEIVED MANY AWARDS, DONE SUCH THINGS AS RAISE MONEY FOR CHRISTIANS
WHEN THEIR CHURCHES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, WORKED INTERNATIONALLY FOR PEACE
AT RISK OF HIS OWN LIFE, AS FOR EXAMPLE TAKING AID TO WAR-TORN COUNTRIES,
CURRENTLY WORKING ON A PROJECT WITH A JEWISH FRIEND TO BENEFIT CHILDREN
IN BOTH ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES. PLEASE READ ABOUT HIM AT
http://www.cres.org/pubs/ahmed.htm
.
I also thank you for reinforcing something that I heard on the radio the
other day. It was that liberals, when presented with the facts of any topic,
are instructed to deny that they can be true, and attack and accuse the
other party of hatred, racism, and general ignorance. Anything to change
the subject.
I HAVE NOT CHANGED THE SUBJECT. YOU JUST HAVE. WHY DO YOU BRING LIBERALISM
INTO THE CONVERSATION?
The whitewashed suicide topic (bombers think that is the way to heaven),
violation of a covenant, defensive war, and peace points fly in the face
of the realities of the world.
YOUR STATEMENT HARDLY CONVINCES ME THAT YOU ARE BETTER INFORMED THAN I.
And your pal doesn't state what "his branch" is doing to stop the "other
Islamists" from their terrible misbehavior and the "misinformation" that
their deeds portray.
I HAVE LIMITED SPACE IN MY COLUMN. HE AND OTHER MUSLIMS I KNOW, BITH SHIA
AND SUNNI, HAVE WORKED WITH OUR GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS TO BRING ABOUT
A BETTER WORLD.
Best wishes in your endeavors.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR WISHES. AND I WISH YOU WELL, TOO. KNOWLEDGE CAN HELP
BRING ABOUT A BETTER FUTURE.
SONDRA
HERTZOG writes --
You plainly show you have no knowledge of this article you wrote.
Please educate yourself, so you do not lead others astray. We are
in great peril in this country from within. People like you fall
right into their hands. It is time for you to investigate what you
report before you report it. It is also time for the Liberals in
this country to stop crying race and diversity. Just look at the
facts as they apply to all humans. hertzog71784@netzero.net
VERN'S
REPLY --
Dear Sondra -- Why do you say I have no knowledge about the matter about
which I wrote?
I have traveled repeatedly in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well
as visiting Muslim sites in this country. I have studied Islam both as
part of my doctoral preparation and during my 40-year career in the ministry.
I have dozens of dear Muslim friends in Kansas City, some of who save Christians
and Jews every day in their work as physicians and are part of the civic
leadership. Some Kansas City Muslim families have been Americans for generations.
They abhor violence. As founder of the KC Interfaith Council, I also have
many, many friends of other faiths as well.
I would also like you to know that I led the city-wide day-long observance
of the first anniversary of 9/11. The loss I experienced personally in
2001 will stay with me forever. However, while protection of our nation
is necessary, we lose our ability to protect ourselves unless we accurately
assess the enemy, and that cannot be done without making the kinds of distinctions
you seem reluctant to make.
I recognize that individual personal experiences and propaganda can make
it difficult for individuals to understand a larger reality. That is why
I write the column. Thanks for letting me know about your perspective.
STEVEN
LEWIS wrote --
Vern, you do a great job defending the indefensible. You could have been
a member of O.J.'s "Dream Team." slewis5@kc.rr.com, www.mcckc.edu/~lewis
VERN'S
REPLY --
Dear
Steven,
I do not defend terrorism.
I do not defend extremism.
I do not defend attacks on innocent people.
I do not defend attacks on non-combatants.
I do not defend perverse destruction of property and hope.
I do not defend criminals.
I condemn terrorism.
I condemn extremism.
I condemn attacks on innocent people.
I condemn attacks on non-combatants.
I condemn perverse destruction of property and hope.
I condemn criminals.
My column gave reasons why all but those wrongly claiming themselves to
be Muslim also condemn terrorism, etc.
I see you teach biology at Penn Valley. I imagine you have a sense of the
value of life. Please know that among the many wonderful Muslims in town,
for many years, are many teachers and physicians who serve and save lives
of Jews, Christians, and people of all faiths or no faith. Muslims in every
profession and line of work.
I have traveled repeatedly in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well
as visiting Muslim sites in this country. I have studied Islam both as
part of my doctoral preparation and during my 40-year career in the ministry.
Some Kansas City Muslim families have been Americans for generations. They
abhor violence. As founder of the KC Interfaith Council, I have many, many
friends of other faiths as well.
When someone writes me and turns what I have written into the opposite,
that I am defending what is condemned, I wonder if that person has had
a terrible personal experience or has been afflicted by narrow propaganda
or perhaps has a political agenda. Whatever the case, I am sorry.
On the other hand, there are folks who lost relatives in 9/11, still grieving,
and, while cherishing the memories of those so violated by the viciousness
of 9/11, seek to find ways to heal rather than deepen misunderstandings.
I would also like you to know that I led the city-wide day-long observance
of the first anniversary of 9/11, with Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu,
Buddhist, etc participation. The loss I experienced personally in 2001
will stay with me forever. However, while protection of our nation is necessary,
we lose our ability to protect ourselves unless we accurately assess the
enemy, and that cannot be done without making the kinds of distinctions
you seem reluctant to make.
I cannot defend ignorance.
I cannot defend prejudice.
Let us build a community of safety for all people.
STEVEN
LEWIS continued --
I know you don't defend terrorism, Vern. The problem is that you tell us
what "true" Muslims believe. Are you saying, then, that you know more about
Islam than the numerous Ayatollas who have condoned actions such as the
World Trade Center attack? The problem with using religion to defend religion
is that those who advocate the use of terror can use the same tactics legitimately.
The answers to our human problems do not lie in ancient holy books! Sincerely,
VERN
continued
Steven, I urge you to consider the vastly greater number of legitimate
and respected Muslim leaders, here and world wide, who condemned the attacks,
compared with the irresponsible few who condoned such actions. I stood
with the Interfaith Council the morning of 9/11, and before the press the
Muslims (along with everyone else) emphatically condemned the attacks.
But was that in the media? No, except for one radio station.
For world-wide condemnation, see http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
and other sites.
Yes, I am saying I know more about Islam, which I've studied as part of
my doctoral work and explored on five continents, than the comparatively
few evil Muslim leaders who distort their faith for political ends. continued
Religion can be, and has been, used for the most wicked of actions. So
has politics. So have ideologies. I suggest that discriminating between
various persons and groups all claiming the same label, whatever that is,
can be useful, and in fact may be necessary, if we are to deal with our
problems. It is also important to recognize when we are misunderstood and
why. I find that the after-effects of colonialism are important dynamics
that need to be kept in mind as we seek to communicate with other peoples.
I don't see how those who perpetrate or advocate terror can use religion
"legitimately" to justify their activities.
I do not believe I said that the answers to our human problems lie in ancient
holy books. Did I? Ever? That was Ronald Reagan who said of the Bible at
a 1980 convention of evangelical Christians in Dallas: “All the complex
and horrendous questions confronting us at home and worldwide have their
answer in that single book.” I wonder if you are bringing other issues
into your reading of my column. I do think that scholarly study of those
texts, and "secular" materials, great literature, art, the history of science,
and all, can give us useful perspectives on our current problems, which
I group in three arenas, environmental, personal, and social. I have given
this a great deal of thought and, while I am glad to hear others' thoughts
as well, I do not benefit from having others tell me what I think. With
that understanding, I would be happy to hear your thoughts.
Thanks for taking the trouble to write. I am glad to have you as a reader.
And a follow-up.
I wonder from what you've said about religion if you might be a Freethinker
(agnostic, atheist, skeptic, etc). I want you to know that I have repeatedly
written favorably about Freethinkers, attended and spoken at such local
groups, had coffee with a good atheist friend of mine yesterday, etc. Some
readers of some of my columns have identified me as an atheist. If you
are a new reader of my column, let me know and I'll forward links to several
columns where I've expressed appreciation for skeptics. One of my prize
possessions is a letter actually from Bertrand Russell (I wrote a column
about that), and I'm eager to recommend a forthcoming book (I've seen the
proofs) that traces the history of criticism of religion.
If you are unaquainted with any of the several wonderful Freethinker groups
in town, I can also put you in touch with them if you like. If I have guessed
wrong about your perspective, please excuse me. I try to be helpful to
people of all persuasions and help them to understand each other.
STEVEN
LEWIS continued --
Vern, I don't expect you to recall me, but I attended UU services in Overland
Park while you were pastor there in the early 1980s. I occasionally read
Billy Graham's newspaper column instead of the funny pages. I read yours
because I often find it insightful. My previous emails to you have all
been congratulatory on columns I found particularly enlightening. I view
the various "bibles" as more historical curiosities than documents to guide
my life. I've concluded that Holy Book table tennis, where one tries to
convince the other of what a real believer should believe or practice,
is a deceptive practice even if it is directed toward dissuading a terrorist
from terrorism.
I fully support, of course, scholarly discourse that tries to reconstruct
the intentions and meanings, both hidden and apparent, to the people who
produced these documents .... and to the effects these documents have had
on humanity
I don't believe there is such a thing as a "true Muslim" or a "real Christian,"
whether they kill for a god or help the helpless for a god. Most likely
I would prefer the behavior of the latter, although I would feel more comfortable
if they helped the helpless for the sake of the helpless. Suggesting that
true Muslims or Christians are the ones that do what you think their Holy
Book "really" intended for them to do gives license to others to cite alternative
chapter and verse that suggests true Muslims or Christians should be killing
for their faith.
Even in the hands of college graduates these ancient books can be like
handing a loaded pistol to a child. They should carry with them a health
warning like cigarettes! Best to you.
VERN
continued
--
Steven, When people -- even college graduates, as you say -- tell me they
are reading the Bible, I usually discourage them. If they insist, I tell
them at least get Cliff's Notes so they will have some background. There
are some excellent books that can guide one through such ancient texts.
I agree with you -- I'd like all Bibles to come with a warning label ---
"Misunderstanding this can lead to fatal errors!"
However, understood in a scholarly context, and selectively in devotional
contexts, the Bible and other scriptures can reveal the thirst the human
animal seems to have for transcendence and provide the benefit of vicarious
experience, just as Shakespeare and Dante and Homer can.
But, Steven, it isn't just ancient texts that cause problems. I've seen
too many people become suicidal, for example, in part from reading A Course
in Miracles (c1976). Religion can be dangerous!
I do think it is possible to identify "normative" Christianity and "normative"
Islam, although this is still a matter of some judgment. For example, while
there are unitarian Christians, normative Christianity is Trinitarian.
Parallels can be made within other faiths, although not necessarily in
terms of belief where belief is not an important identifier in certain
faiths (Hinduism, for example).
Thanks for writing and reminding me a bit of your background.
FATIMAH
EL-SHERIF in Egypt writes --
In reference to your July 27th article... I wanted to say thank you. You
always put the words so perfectly together. Making me proud to be a Kansas
City native and to have grown up in such a diverse and respectful community.
WILLIAM
DUNNING writes --
Mr. Barnet, I enjoyed reading your article, “Knowledge Conquers Fear.”
You included a few points that were quite a different take on what I “thought
I knew.”
I would be very interested to hear the Imam. I have been reading
on Islamic topics; Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, (who seems to have a ‘fear
and loathing’ sort of view) Just begun on Robert L. Esposito, and Karen
Armstrong just got picked up from the library today. Any other suggested
reading?
I do have my very own Qur’an. I find it hard to navigate, but Warraq
notes that it is one of the better English translations.
Where is Pine ridge Presbyterian? What day and time does the Imam
make his presentation. Reservations necessary? Admission/donation?
Please let me know, or point me to a web site that would give the information.
I’ll pass it on to others who may be interested. The Imam is doing
a good thing. Thank you.
VERN'S
RESPONSE --
Dear Mr Dunning, The Pine Ridge Presbyterian Church is located at 7600
NW Barry Road, KCMO 64153 ph:(816)741.5118. Here is the church website:
http://pineridge.org/SiteResources/Data/Templates/t1.asp?docid=568&DocName=Home
The Sunday class runs 9:30 to 10:45 as I recall, bu I am sending a copy
of this email to Brian Van Batavia, who arranged the class in case I am
wrong. I'm also sending a copy to Imam El-Sherif as I think Brian will
be unable to attend this one Sunday. There is no charge for this class.
At any rate, I am sure you are most welcome! There is no charge for this
class.
You can read a somewhat dated bio sketch about El-Sherif at http://www.cres.org/pubs/ahmed.htm.
The Qur'an is difficult to read and understand without information about
the historical circumstances of each passage. It is really a kind of poetry,
which makes interpretation a problem for those unfamiliar with the idioms
and modes of expression. As with the Bible, it is easy to take things out
of context and thus misconstrue the actual meaning of a text.
You have made good book selections. I especially like Armstrong's short
ISLAM: A BRIEF HISTORY. It contains an excellent list of books for
further reading which I cannot improve upon. Espositio, a Catholic expert
on Islam, has written many books on the subject. Paul Findley's book
SILENT NO MORE presents a side the American public does not often hear.
Even THE COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING ISLAM contains some useful
insights. [WHAT'S RIGHT WITH
ISLAM IS WHAT'S RIGHT WITH AMERICA is by the American Imam, Feisal Abdul
Rauf. and No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam and
Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting Religious Extremism in a Globalized
Age by Reza Aslan.]
Thank you for reading my column! And taking the trouble to write me! Best
wishes,
JANET
BAKER writes --
Good morning Vern, "Knowledge Conquers Fear." So true! I am
also passionate about diversity. You are speaking truth to power
and I thank you for all your good work and meaningful columns.
Your
friend in peace,
VERN'S
RESPONSE --
Thanks for reading and for taking the trouble to write! Many of those reacting
to the column worry me, so I appreciate a little balance!
LARRY
McMEINS writes --
You, sir, are and have been a naive idiot. For years you have prattled
on and on about how wonderful, beautiful and necessary is religious diversity.
You would have us believe that, basically, all religions share the same
positive values, all share the same ethics and are pretty much interchangeable.
All the time you have been preaching this nonsense the extremist Muslims
have, not only been murdering non-Muslims, but loudly bragging about it
and telling us we are next on their list. In your article today, you breathlessly
describe how Imam Ahmed El-Sherif preached at a Presbyterian Church about
how Islam is the religion of peace. If you and those Presbyterians
care to read the news, you will find that thousands and thousands of Muslims
do not agree with that assessment. You will also find out that millions
and millions of Muslims refuse to speak out against Islamist violence.
One clue about how naive you, and apparently those Presbyterians,
are is that you fail to see how such preaching by a Muslim Imam could
actually be of value and help "conquer fear." Sadly, you are to overly
anxious to want to see even a slight hint that maybe, just maybe, Islam
actually is peaceful. In spite of all the violence committed
in the name of Islam. And what you fail to notice is that most non-Muslims
have rarely, if ever, been made aware of Imams preaching peace towards
non-Muslims in a Mosque. When and if it can ever be verified that
such behavior commonly happens, then I will be as impressed as you are
and I will apologize. In the meantime, you and your pacifist attitudes
towards a violent religion, Islam, just makes you look like a naive lamb
bleating about how good and honest your shepherd is as he leads you to
slaughter.
You know damn well it is so very, very easy for an Imam to preach tonon-Muslims
about how gentle and peaceful he and his religion is. Surely you
don't think any Imam would be dumb enough to preach at a Christian church
and admit otherwise do you? Why don't you ask him to preach that
Presbyterian sermon at his Mosque and let you sit in on it. I am
betting you do not want to know the truth of what would happen if you tried
to do that. In fact I would be willing to bet money on it.
VERN'S
RESPONSE --
Dear Larry
-- Thank you for writing. I will do my best to respond.
1.
Your email contains errors of interpretation regarding what I write and
what I wrote. First, no where did I say that the imam preached at the Presbyterian
church. In fact I indicated that he "led a class" and I gave the name of
the layman who arranged the class. You may want to reread the column.
2.
Second, my theme over many years has been diversity, not agreement, among
religions. I have in fact criticized the notion that all religions
share some version of the Golden Rule. I wonder if you are confusing me
with someone else.
Some religions are like others in some respects, and differ markedly from
others in other respects. Judaism is a monotheistic religion. Buddhism
is non-theistic. True, Jews and Buddhists are alike in that they both eat,
but they are different in their dietary practices. Please do not report
me saying the opposite of what I in fact have said repeatedly.
I emphasize differences rather than similarities. We are all alike, yes;
but we are all different, too. Too often we fear differences instead of
understanding and enjoying them, and we cheat ourselves by looking mainly
for similarities. I don't want all of my food to taste like potatoes. I
don't want to focus on how Kansas City and Paris and Calcutta are alike.
I don't want to see just the similarities between Mozart and Steely Dan
and Eminem. Why are you more likely to lend money to a friend than to a
guy newly convicted of robbery if it is our human similarities that should
override other considerations? If all people are basically alike and that’s
what’s important, what difference does it make who you marry or choose
as a business partner?
Most of us understand religion so poorly that we apply our own categories
to others' faiths when those categories miss the very essence of the other
faiths. Religions don't just have different ways of doing the same things;
we do different things, and aim for different things. I believe we can
build stronger relationships by celebrating differences instead of submerging
them or relying on our similarities.
Nonetheless, I do think the religions can be grouped into three "families,"
and while the differences among them are important, at the most basic level,
it is essential to see the differences among the three families. I believe
our survival depends on this, as you'll see from this chart: http://www.cres.org/#chart
I would appreciate it if you would not say that I think "all religions
share the same positive values, all share the same ethics and are pretty
much interchangeable." I do not think that. I repeat, I do not think that.
I do not say that. I do not write that.
If someone wishes to be taken seriously, one needs to hear what the other
is actually saying.
3. It is curious that you are eager for Muslims to condemn
terrorism, but when I write about a Muslim condemning terrorism, you write
an unpleasant note to me instead of congratulations. Please remember that
there are extremists claiming to be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. In fact,
Muslims have repeatedly and overwhelmingly condemned violence. Among the
dead on 9/11 were almost 400 Muslims. I urge you to consider the
vast number of legitimate and respected Muslim leaders, here and world
wide, who condemn terrorism, compared with the irresponsible few who encourage
such actions. I stood with the Interfaith Council the morning of 9/11,
and before the press the Muslims (along with everyone else) emphatically
condemned the attacks. But was that in the media? No, except for
one radio station.
For world-wide condemnation, see http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
and http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/373-whywedonthear and other
sites. I know there are a comparatively few evil Muslim leaders out of
the 1.5 billion Muslims who distort their faith for political ends. Religion
can be, and has been, used for the most wicked of actions. So has politics.
So have ideologies. I suggest that discriminating between various
persons and groups all claiming the same label, whatever that is, can be
useful, and in fact may be necessary, if we are to deal with our problems.
It is also important to recognize when we are misunderstood and why. I
find that the after-effects of colonialism are important dynamics that
need to be kept in mind as we seek to communicate with other peoples.
4.
Concerning Ahmed El-Sherif, a loyal American, who has been recognized many
times and by many organizations for his contributions to the community
and for his service: I have known him for many years. He is a man of deep
and abiding integrity who supports folks of all faiths. For example, when
Christian churches have been destroyed, he raised money to help rebuild
them. He has worked internationally at risk of his own life as well as
locally for peace. Currently he is working on a project with a Jewish friend
to benefit suffering children in both Israel and the Palestinian Occupied
Territories. Please read about him at http://www.cres.org/pubs/ahmed.htm
.
You challenge me to listen to him preach at a mosque. I have in fact heard
him many times preach in a mosque and I am always inspired by his generosity
and advocacy for peace. I have also heard other imams as well preach in
mosques and invariably heard a message of peace and righteousness.
If you would like, I'd be happy to arrange an opportunity for you to hear
him preach.
There are many excellent books on Islam. I especially like Karen Armstrong's
ISLAM: A BRIEF HISTORY because it is short and has useful reference material
in the back. John Espositio, a Catholic expert on Islam, has written
many books on the subject. Paul Findley's book, SILENT NO MORE presents
a side the American public does not often hear. Even THE COMPLETE
IDIOT'S
GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING ISLAM contains some useful insights.
5a.
You call me an idiot. I generally do not find insults to be helpful in
the exchange of views. I do not know about your situation, of course, but
sometimes those who call others names are often unconsciously insecure
and try to bolster their own sense of self-worth and superiority by defaming
others.
I have traveled in South America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as
well as visiting Muslim sites in this country. Yes, I am saying I know
both (rather, many) sides of Islam, which I've studied as part of my doctoral
work and during my 40-year career in the ministry. Some Kansas City
Muslim families have been Americans for generations. They abhor violence.
As founder of the KC Interfaith Council, I have many, many friends of other
faiths as well. These friends have added to my studies and travel.
In addition, contrary to your skepticism that I am acquainted with the
news, I read a number of daily newspapers, obtain numerous media reports,
and in other ways keep up on the often unpleasant news of our time.
5b.
I'm not sure this qualifies me as a "naive idiot." We may have different
views, but that does not mean either of us is an idiot, and I hold off
judging you, as I say, because I do not know your situation.
When someone writes me and turns what I have written into the opposite,
that I am defending what is condemned, I wonder if that person has had
a terrible personal experience or has been afflicted by narrow propaganda
or perhaps has a political agenda. Whatever the case, I am sorry.
On the other hand, there are folks who lost relatives in 9/11 and other
attacks by Muslims and those of other faiths as well, alas, still grieving,
and, while cherishing the memories of those so violated by the viciousness
of terrorism, seek to find ways to heal rather than deepen misunderstandings.
The loss I experienced personally in 2001 will stay with me forever. The
protection of our nation is necessary, and we lose our ability to protect
ourselves unless we accurately assess the enemy, and that cannot be done
without making the kinds of distinctions you seem reluctant to make.
6.
In conclusion, I want you to know that I do not suppose I have changed
your strong views. I did want to write you back so you will know that I
considered them. I do appreciate your reading my column and I do
thank you for writing. I'd be interested to know if any of this has been
helpful, or if it seems to you still that I am quite the naive idiot. With
best wishes,
LARRY
McMEINS continues --
OK, Vern, you have shown me the error of my thinking. You responded
to my angry email with a calm and friendly attitude. You appear to
live what you preach. So I should not have used the word "idiot"
to apply to you. Please accept my sincere apology (for whatever
it is worth to you) and let me change the word to just "man." A naive
man. And let me show you why I still call you "naive."
On Dec. 7, 1941, America learned all it needed to know about the country
of Japan. In 1995 America learned all it needed to know about Timothy
McVey. On 9-11-01 America learned all it needs to know about radical
Islam. Not just because of the heinous, murderous actions of a band
of extremist Muslim terrorists, but because of the celebration exhibited
by hundreds of thousands of Muslims around the world. And, maybe
even worse, by the inaction of millions of Muslims around the world. I.E.
their deafening silence by not condemning the heinous attack on the world
trade center.
So, rather than me sending you a detailed, lengthy response to your friendly
and kind email, I will just ask you one short, simple question, if you
care to answer. Do you consider millions of Muslims who either below
to radical Islam, or at least support or don't oppose radical Islam, to
be one of the very top possible causes of the future destruction of the
non-Muslim (mostly Western) world?
If you do not, then you are indeed a naive man and you may, in your lifetime,
witness the death of many loved ones, and possible civilization in
general, at the hands of extremist, hate-filled Muslims. Muslims
who believe in a primitive religion that treats them worse than slaves
in that they are REQUIRED to go to their Mosque AT LEAST 5 times a day,
remove their shoes (I guess God despises shoes for some reason),
put their face into some dirty prayer rug, their ass in the air (or
maybe in the face of the believer behind them) and pray to their creator.
A creator who apparently is not powerful enough to murder his own enemies
but must instead rely on murderous, extremist Muslims.
Do you agree with the above or not? 913-829-1959
VERN
continued --
Dear Larry-- Thank you for reconsidering part of your opinion about me.
I appreciate your best efforts to have a civil and informative discussion.
I abhor and condemn Muslim extremists. I also abhor and condemn Christian
extremists (and those, in the context of their times, did such despicable
things to those of their own faith and others and were considered then
normative). I also abhor and condemn Jewish extremists, and Hindu extremists,
etc, regardless against whom the violence is directed. Gandhi was murdered
by a Hindu extremist, Rabin by a Jewish extremist, and Sadat by a Muslim
extremist.
However, Muslims were not silent after 9/11. There was a near unanimous
condemnation. I heard it here in Kansas City and from around the world.
May I inquire whether your followed the link I provided in item #3 above?
Further, the problem is how to defeat Muslim extremists. That means learning
about them and their recruiting methods and ideology. If they are Muslims,
they are Muslims only in the sense that Christians who murder or exploit
or swindle are Christians. I certainly agree that Muslim extremists are
a danger to the world, and most Muslims agree (such as most Afghans abhor
the Taliban).
In order to understand the origins of Islamic extremists, which is a relatively
recent phenomenon (historically Muslims have been far more generous and
tolerant than Christians who have historically been far more violent),
it is important to recognize historical facts. I don't mean simple facts
like the first nation to recognize the Independence of the United States
was a Muslim country. I mean we need to understand the complex political
environment that resulted from colonialism. For example, perhaps the worst
form of Islamic extremism is Wahhabism (1744), which we in effect supported
because of our lust for oil. In recognizing (UK, 1927 etc) the nation of
Saudi Arabia, the West empowered the worst (or at least one of the worst)
expressions of Islam in history. While many Muslims admire the US, they
also resent the West's support for oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia.
Many Americans have short memories. For example, we gave WMD to Iraq (Saddam
Hussein) in order to support his struggle with Iran (which had a revolution
in 1979 because we had installed a dictator, the Shah, after our CIA overthrew
the democratically elected government of Mossadegh. So normative Islam,
which is basically a religion of peace and consensus, has in part become
radicalized by certain Western actions which have given Islam an ugly political
face and led in part to the threat both non-Muslims and other Muslims face,
with myriad of different factions arising from different local circumstances
and wretched leaders. And it is important to recognize that only about
20% of the world's Muslims are Arab. (Iran is Muslim Shi'a but not Arab).
Iraq is Arab but mainly Shi'a, where most Arabs are Sunni.
None of this is to defend violence. But to be effective in protecting ourselves,
it is essential to know the enemy and how the enemy thinks.
You might be interested in reading the report of the 9/11 Diversity Task
Force, which I chaired, working with the FBI and other agencies. You can
download the PDF version from http://www.cres.org/pubs/dtf/index.htm.
You may continue to consider me naive, and these few comments may not prove
otherwise. But I assure you, having traveled the world, studied Islam for
years, chaired the commission I mentioned, I am probably more informed
than the average citizen.
As for your disregard of Islamic prayer practices, I would invite you to
attend a Friday prayer service and you might discover how beautiful it
is. As for your notion of "dirty" prayer rugs, you betray an ignorance
that is astounding. Before a Muslim prays, he does ablutions, washing himself
(including his nostrils) to present himself clean in body to be clean in
spirit. As for the five-time prayer, St Paul commands Christians to "pray
without ceasing." They are not required to go to the mosque five times
a day, but to pray five times a day. Men are expected to go to the mosque
once a week, for Friday noon-time prayer, as Christians are expected to
go to church once a week on Sunday. I am not a Muslim, but I remove my
shoes when I enter my own house. God told Moses "put off thy shoes from
off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground."
(Ex 3:5.)
I would like to think that we have disagreements, but that you do not think
I am particularly naive.
Do let me know if this is helpful, Obviously I have a heavy schedule, and
I have taken some time to recognize some of your concerns but cannot address
them fully. If you are sincere in learning about Islam, why not start with
the books I have suggested and let me take you to Friday prayer some time
soon. With best wishes,
LARRY
McMEINS continued --
Vern, Perhaps your method of studying the Muslims in fine detail will work
in dealing with the radical Islamic threat. In my case, if a person
or group wants to harm me or mine when we are not personally responsible
for any harm done to that person or group, then the murderous intent of
that person or group is about all I need to know about them in order for
me to form my opinion. In addition, I believe that most Muslim men
have been treating their women and children, much like they treat
their animals, for centuries. I don't know of any scientific advance
that has come out of the Muslim world for centuries. I myself have
not seen any Muslim individuals or groups publicly protest their extremist,
murderous Muslim brothers. In general, I believe that Islam is a hateful,
murderous, primitive and ignorant religion. Perhaps future actions
by the extremist Muslims will change your attitude to match mine.
Perhaps not.
While many (perhaps most) religions have had a violent history, the extremist
Muslims are the only religious group that in modern time seems to want
to destroy me, my family, my county and also destroy you Vern.
Thank you for the conversation, I wish you well, and I will let you
have the last word.
Larry McMeins, 913-829-1959
VERN
continued --
I think you are correct that we can wrap up this conversation. I am concerned
to protect our nation from terrorism and I know that demonizing an entire
1.5 billion people because of an evil fanatic element plays intro
the terrorists hands. I know that the US has never had a woman president
but several Islamic nations have had women leaders. I know our debt to
Islam is incredibly deep, from alfalfa to zero. I know that in America
and in Kansas City Muslim researchers and physicians are saving lives (I
know this personally). I know Muslims have been involved in various ways
at the Royals, the Country Club Plaza, elected governmental units, and
so forth. I cannot betray my many Muslim friends here and abroad working
for peace.
I distinguish "Muslim extremists" from the many Muslims who are decent,
loving, productive, peace-loving people. You apparently have not availed
yourself of the citations I offered of the many condemnations of terrorism
and violence, such as http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
so
I am left wondering if you simply are uninterested in evidence that might
suggest that you revise your view that Muslims have not overwhelmingly
condemned violence. If this is so, that evidence is useless in a discussion,
then it is indeed appropriate that we end correspondence.
Regretfully, But wishing you well, too,
.
. . .
LARRY
concluded --
The next time I want to be rude and start an argument, I will try to find
only people who deserve my attention and try and leave the good people
alone.
VERN
concluded --
You cared enough (perhaps about me) to attempt a conversation. I am grateful
for that. I respect a person who tries to do one's duty as a citizen, to
set forth a clearer understanding of the world, especially though the difficult
medium of emails. Your your good intentions and faithfulness, I offer thanks.
At prayer at church this morning I thought of our exchange twice, once
in confessing my own faults and limitations and again when we included
the names of those killed this week as the world struggles to deal with
the terrible problem of extremism.
Please forgive my inadequacies and know I also tried to be faithful to
you as a fellow-citizen sharing perspectives with one another.
RICHARD
wrote --
I recently received this “Explanation of Islam” from a conservative friend
in Virginia. Would you take a few minutes to view the video?
I am very interested in you reaction. How much of this video is actually
true?
I am not that familiar with the philosophy or practice of Islam.
If the information provided by the video is true, this is disturbing.
If is untrue, it is equally disturbing as it’s being circulated throughout
the country via the internet.
Thanks for taking time to view and react to the attached video.
Interesting information on Islam.
Subject: Explanation of Islam
http://chicksontheright.com/2010/07/21/a-study-of-islam/
VERN
replied --
I'm working under deadline right now and must be brief in response to the
slick video, http://chicksontheright.com/2010/07/21/a-study-of-islam/
1. The "difficult" passages in the Qur'an occur in a very specific historical
context and clearly are not normative for most situations, any more that
you attacking someone who is attacking your loved one in your own home
demonstrates how you will normally behave in public. The Qur'an is largely
poetry, meant to be chanted, and its allusions and language make many passages
subject to various interpretations. The video ignores also that the Qur'an
is supplemented by the Hadith, which is similar to the Torah being supplemented
by the Talmud, both with conflicting interpretations. The idea that there
is one view flowing from the Quran is demonstrably wrong, given the extraordinary
cultural inflections and four basic legal schools just in Sunni Islam.
Further, the history of Islam is far more peaceful and tolerant than that
of Christianity.
2. Historically there is much justification for seeing a desire for justice
within Islam, and a rejection of the kind of despotic leaders that the
Colonial West foisted on many Muslim countries, some of which the West
virtually created to control. The relationship between various movements
within Islam regarding politics range enormously, from those who have taught
the Muslim must have no relationship with government at all to those who
want to control government. Many American Muslims have stated publicly
that the US Constitution is compatible with, and an expression of, Muslim
political ideals. There is nothing unusual about believers in particular
faiths going to their religious leaders for opinions. For example, Orthodox
Jews seek judgments in Jewish law from rabbis. Catholics wishing to annul
marriages go through religious courts. This video confounds Islam with
certain cultural practices which we in the West have, ironically, strengthened
(Saudi Arabia is a vivid example). However, there is much in Islamic law
from which we can learn. For example, the recent financial collapse narrowly
averted would never have happened if Islamic banking practices had been
followed.
3. Above I've already covered many of the misrepresentations under #3.
You might be interested in reading the exchange I've had following publication
of my
my
column 828, http://www.cres.org/star/star2010.htm#828, with JIM HOEL, STEVEN
LEWIS, and
LARRY
McMEINS.
You owe it to yourself to read at least Karen Armstrong's little book that
I mention and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Islam.
Thank you for writing. I am sorry I cannot respond more fully at this time.
My own long-time study of Islam, travel, and many friendships with Muslim
cause me to grieve deeply when I see things like this video, inspired it
seems to be to create mistrust for political ends.
Again, thanks for seeking another opinion about the video.
827. 100721 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
All faiths find value in worship
Long before the internet, cell phones and
endless electronic to-do lists gave rise to our age of distraction, Roman
Catholic priest Romano Guardini wrote that worship is play.
I think what he meant is
that worship is a kind of “time out” from our everyday work pursuits. “The
soul must learn to abandon, at least in prayer, the restlessness of purposeful
activity,” he wrote.
The ancient Greeks also prized
play because it frees us from the everyday roles we adopt or are forced
into so that we are better able to discover who we really are.
“The liturgy has laid down
the serious rules of the sacred game which the soul plays before God,”
Guardini wrote. We become joyful “children” playing in the presence of
a divine Parent.
He asked what those who object
to worship as play will think when, finding themselves in heaven, they
have nothing to do but sing an “eternal song of praise.”
On the other hand, the Reformation
has generally approached worship less as sacrament and more as teaching.
Worship has sometimes been stripped of ritual rules and devices like incense,
vestments and the liturgical calendar in order to focus on instruction
for practicing faith in the workaday world.
Of these two tendencies many
churches nowadays seek a balance within their traditions and today’s needs.
Like the play/work polarity
are two answers to the question, “Why worship?”
If worship is an activity
we perform for God, then it makes sense to design worship with all the
artistic and dramatic skills at our disposal, even to praise God with music
and dance, as Psalm 150 commands.
On the other hand, if worship
is meant to benefit the worshipper more than God, then instruction is what
counts. It can vary from a sermon, common in most Sunday services, to sitting
in silence until the Inner Light within us commands us speak to our companions,
the traditional Quaker mode.
On five continents I’ve worshipped
with not only with Christians and Jews, but also with Muslims at Friday
prayer in the mosque, with Buddhists in zendo meditation, with American
Indians in the sweat lodge, with misogi at a Shinto waterfall, with puja
in a Hindu temple, with karah parshad at a Sikh gurdwara, with magick rites
in a pagan circle and so forth.
Parallels to the different
approaches to worship in Christianity can be found as well in these other
faiths.
But what all have in common
is found in the Old English word, weorthscippen, scooping out or
ascribing worth. In this context, worship means considering what is of
ultimate value. Even atheists have ways of doing this.
CRES WEBSITE NOTES:
Implied but
not explained is the connection between "play" and sacramentalism. One
might consider the sacramental and the instructional approach to worship
the "two hands" of the Christian devotional tradition. Instructional worship
is often moral in focus.
DIscussion of "transference"
(in the psychoanalytic sense) arising from the role of priest or minister
or other religious leader would be interesting.
READER COMMENT
Paul
S. wrote:
Your column today was so beautifully inclusive and profound. The last sentence
was a humdinger!
Gene
B. wrote:
Thanks for the excellent and thoughtful piece on worship today!
trapblock
wrote on 7/22/2010 --
The common thread of these faiths is that they all contain elements of
the Truth which resides in it's entirety in the Church that Christ founded.
"That the end we ought to propose to ourselves is to become, in this life,
the most perfect worshippers of God we can possibly be, as we hope to be
through all eternity." - Brother Lawrence
Mama
Fortuna (in California) wrote:
Just a quick note to let you know I enjoyed your article about worship
being play, with loving adult-figures. Made sense.
COLUMN CITED
Sikh
Post July 20
826. 100714 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Diversity strengthens faith
June 23 I wrote about the variety within
Christianity as an example of the differences found within each of the
great religions.
The column later appeared
in several other papers. Violet Bortz of Twin Falls, Idaho, writes that
her church “stresses the importance of unity.” She worries about “so many
different ideas” and wonders if I have a clue “as to what the solution
is.”
Perhaps diversity is not
the problem. Maybe it is our fear of diversity that causes trouble. The
solution may lie in celebrating differences as valuable perspectives on
the human spiritual quest.
While the story of the Christ
is central to Christianity, various Christians understand the story differently.
That’s why there are many denominations. Some Christians believe in the
literal bodily resurrection of Jesus; others understand the resurrection
as an allegory of the church which has become the body of Christ.
Christianity as a whole exhibits
no unity of belief, of governance, of worship, of moral expectations, nor
of practice. For example, some shop and go to movies on Sunday. Others
refrain as a way of observing the Sabbath. For others the Sabbath is Saturday.
Why is this a problem? We
come from different backgrounds and face different circumstances. We see
the world differently.
A one-size-fits-all faith
does not respect our individual spiritual needs anymore than forcing folks
with high cholesterol or lactose intolerance or a distaste for broccoli
to follow the same diet.
For the most part, we are
able to accommodate each other. And when there is conflict, different beliefs
are usually the excuse, not the cause, for vexation.
In his first letter to the
Corinthians, chapter 12, St. Paul employs a metaphor of the parts of the
body to the whole to discuss the importance of difference within unity.
He writes:
“If the whole body were a
single organ, there would be no body at all. . . . The eye cannot say to
the hand, ‘I do not need you,’ nor the head to the feet, ‘I do not need
you.’ Quite the contrary.’
Perhaps Paul’s metaphor can
be extended to Violet’s perplexity. Just as the hand encounters the world
differently than the eye, so we as individuals explain our encounters with
the sacred in different ways.
It seems unreasonable that
we should all agree on a single way to express the great mysteries of life.
To do so, would be to make the hand the whole body, which would mean no
body at all.
The unity of humanity is
found not in identical beliefs but rather in working together, hand and
eye, offering our differences to one another with respect, compassion and
thanksgiving.
READER COMMENT
DIANE
wrote
--
.... as always you explain the value of differences so diplomatically and
plainly. Thank you for continuing in your life's calling!
JACK
wrote --
your article yesterday was particularly excellent. I get a real kick
out of your writing.
GEORGE
C wrote --
RE: Your July 14, 2010 KC Star column Diversity Strengthens Faith
Your statement that "one-size-fits-all does not respect individual needs"
is mixing apples and broccoli. I have enjoyed reading your weekly column
for a decade or so in spite of the fact I do not agree with your basic
premise. I am aware of your position in the community as a strong advocate
for unity within the diverse religious community. Nevertheless I
am convinced diversity does not strengthen but dilutes Godly worship.
It is the duty of man to obey God and accept His commandments (Eccl 12:13).
Jesus Christ promised to build a church (Mt 16:18), its foundation was
the teachings of the apostles and Christ (Eph 2:18) and he gave his life
for it (Eph 5:25).
If you believe in God you also believe He has an adversary who would eagerly
introduce confusion into Christ's plan. One successful strategy would
create bogus religions and teach that they are all acceptable. If
I were the enemy I can think of no better plan to guide prospects away
from Christianity's doorway. I would embrace confusion and encourage
diversity so people would not be able to recognize the path to salvation!
While the various churches may be equal legally they are not equal in God's
eyes.
As far as respecting other religions, I certainly do. When the Native
American performs his rain dance I do not scoff or ridicule. I don't
think he has an effect on the weather but I don't insult him. Counterfeit
Christians will and that brings dishonor on Christ and his church.
Diversity does not strengthen but dilutes Godly worship.
Finding a needle in a haystack is difficult enough but tossing in several
counterfeit needles would certainly produce confusion and prevent easily
identifying the original. Likewise, creating several counterfeit
churches would also confuse people. Today the IRS recognizes well over
2000 different "Christian" churches, each worshiping in its own way.
Based on numbers alone, there are at least 1999 churches that are not worshipping
according to apostolic teaching. There are many that seem right but are
not acceptable to God (Prov 14:12).
The apostle Paul was distressed that some Christians were quick to accept
change (Gal 1:6-8). He warns them/us (2 Thess 2:2-4) to not
be deceived by anyone claiming to be God. He warns of the time when some
will not keep the doctrines of the apostles but will grasp false teachers
who say what people want to hear (2 Tim 4:3-4). Peter
also warned of false teachers convincing their followers to believe lies,
heresies and insidious ways. We are warned to avoid these at the
expense of serious penalty (2 Pet 2:1-6).
No Mr. Barnet, I don't think diversity strengthens faith. It prevents
many from finding the church that Jesus started. We should accept
the teachings of the apostles, not those who came along later. Remember,
Christ started his church in Jerusalem, not in Topeka, Wittenberg or Rome.
Respectfully,
VERN
replied --
Thank you for your thoughtful communication.
Diversity is a fact. Having taught Bible and church history as well
as world religions in seminary, I am familiar with the disputes from the
beginnings in Jerusalem (see Acts and the letters attributed to Paul).
So whether you like diversity or not, it is here and has been in every
faith I know about since each faith's origin. We can fight it (labeling
people heretics or burning them at the stake) or maybe we can learn something
that will enrich our own faith by trying to understand why others feel,
think and behave differently that we do.
You do mistake my aim when you write, "I am aware of your position
in the community as a strong advocate for unity within the diverse religious
community."
I
am not now and never have been in favor of "unity within the diverse religious
community."
I have always promoted respect for differences.
My point is not to decide for you or anyone else who is right. I respect
your opinion and I certainly do not want to put "apples and broccoli" in
a blender and come up with mush or mix them in any way. I think the world
is better with distinctions.
What you consider a "bogus religion" someone else finds to be true. I am
not trying to decide for you. I am not competent to decide for others.
You may feel you are in that position to know the truth, but obviously,
from the many forms of Christianity that exist even in the Kansas City
area, most people will not agree with you. As you put it, you are 1 against
1999, using IRS figures. It simply is a fact that folks have different
opinions about who is the true and who is the counterfeit Christian. And
so many churches claim to follow the teachings of Christ and the apostles,
yet all claiming to do so, we have a proliferation of churches.
I deeply cherish my own faith and am grateful for the stimulation and deepening
that has happened over the years and continues to happen as I learn about
others.
As I wrote, "A one-size-fits-all faith does not respect our individual
spiritual needs any more than forcing folks with high cholesterol or lactose
intolerance or a distaste for broccoli to follow the same diet."
I am glad you do not make fun of American Indians, though from your statement
I am not at all sure you really understand what a rain dance is about.
Thank you for writing. I doubt very much that I have changed your mind,
but I have tried to be faithful to let you know I have considered your
email and to confess frankly why I continue to value diversity.
I would hope, however, that you and I agree that our over-secular society
is in deep trouble and needs a revival of faith.
My working position is that we have three great crises: in the environment,
in personhood, and in society. I think the sense of the sacred found in
Primal, Asian, and Monotheistic faiths can help us resolve these crises
of secularism by pushing us to dig more deeply into our own traditions,
whatever they are, as we become acquainted with other faiths and the differences
within them.
Again, thanks for reading my column even though you disagree, and for taking
the trouble to write me.
Respectfully and with appreciation,
GEORGE
C continued
REF: "A recent column about diversity … drew some vehement responses."
Dear Mr. Barnet, Imagine my surprise when I saw one of my remarks in the
newspaper! Then I noticed it wasn't in such a good light. Bummer!
First, I had to look up "vehement" just to make sure. According to
my Webster's New World it means: 1) … violent, impetuous. Hmmmm,
that's not me. 2) Intense feeling, strong passion. That's
better but misleading to your readers.
Perhaps my disagreeing with you felt like an attack and I set off your
"fight or flight" mechanism. Often the fight takes on some strange twists.
For example, as a former IRS employee I know they recognize well over 2000
groups claiming to be Christian. I never said they have a list.
The IRS has no constitutional authority over any Church, and may not violate
the First Amendment protection against government interference with a Church.
The IRS does prohibit such organizations from "carrying on propaganda,
or otherwise attempting to influence legislation" (26 USC 501-C-3).
Section 508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that Churches are
not required to apply for recognition of Section 501(c) (3) status in order
to be exempt from federal taxation or to receive tax deductible contributions.
In essence, anyone can claim to be doing business as a church and until
they violate US Code, the IRS remains "hands off." So they
"recognize" a whole raft/bunch/passel of churches.
Forget the IRS and looking at the KC Yellow Pages we see there are quite
a few churches around here. As a former Bible teacher you should
know that Christ started only one church. Regardless of the total,
today the number available is more than one.
You said, "As you put it, you are 1 against 1999, using IRS figures."
I did not advocate any particular church. But based on simple math and
common senes, (X - 1) are in error.
In your previous email you corrected me where I said you were a strong
advocate for "unity within the diverse religious community." I stand
(or, in this case, sit) corrected. Yes, I agree, diversity is a fact.
I never meant to imply it was not. My point was that God established
a worship system and warned us to "keep the faith" and avoid false teachers.
The numerous churches today prove that mankind has created many false churches
in competition with whichever church Jesus started.
<< So whether you like diversity or not, it is here and has been
in every faith I know about since each faith's origin. We can fight it
(labeling people heretics or burning them at the stake) or maybe we can
learn something that will enrich our own faith by trying to understand
why others feel, think and behave differently that we do.>>
It wasn't my intention to fight diversity, just point out that in my opinion
it is not something to admire or support as we were told to avoid false
teachers.
You mentioned "burn them at the stake" and it reminded me of how Paul and
Barnabus reacted when they were persecuted by the Jews. They did not burn
anyone at the stake. They did not organize a pogrom or crusade. They
left the city, shaking the dust off their feet. That is what
Christians do.
Not one Christian, from Christ himself on down, fought back or demanded
the death of their adversaries. Christ taught to love your neighbor and/or
enemy and turn the other cheek to diffuse the situation. Yet armies
have been formed to kill in the name of Christ and inquisitions were used
to protect the established monolithic organization in control at that time.
I'm not fighting that, just pointing out that burning heretics is not something
God, Jesus Christ or his apostles wanted. After all, if you kill someone
they no longer have a chance to repent and accept His gospel. Thus
I conclude it is not God's policy to burn heretics.
<< I have always promoted respect for differences.>>
<< I am glad you do not make fun of American Indians, though
from your statement I am not at all sure you really understand what a rain
dance is about. >>
Sorry if I did not make myself clear. I respect people, I don't necessarily
agree with their ideas.
I think it is each individual's responsibility to work out his own salvation.
Accepting counterfeit churches indicates a cavalier attitude toward religion.
<<What you consider a "bogus religion" someone else finds to be true.>>
"Find to be true?" I would question how much effort most people place in
"finding" the truth! People stand in line overnight for concert tickets
or the latest issue of Harry Potter but won't spend ten minutes researching
the church they are attending. Its nearby, mom and pop went there,
they have a nice youth program and/or the Pastor looks and sounds nice
on TV. Once they have made their selection few can change their minds
(fight or flight again?). They deeply cherish that faith and enjoy
the social aspects of it. But is it the one God established? Or are
they victims of pious men wearing long robes who enjoy prestige?
Mr. Barnet, I agree with you that our over-secular society is in deep trouble
and needs a revival of faith. My solution would be to dig deeper into Scripture,
learn the truth and follow it. Too many man-made traditions have
confused and complicated the truth.
In closing, I enjoyed meeting you years ago at an evolution/creation debate.
(Now THERE'S a debate!) I recognize your life's work is to explore spirituality
within the diverse religious community. I still disagree but I hope
you value my position as I value yours.
Respectfully, George Cook, Riverside, MO 816 746-3840
VERN
continued --
Dear Mr Cook -- I was using "vehement" in the first sense:
"1.
zealous; ardent; impassioned: a vehement defense; vehement enthusiasm.
2.
characterized by rancor or anger; violent: vehement hostility.
3.
strongly emotional; intense or passionate: vehement desire.
4.
marked by great energy or exertion; strenuous: vehement clapping."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vehement
I apologize if this term was inappropriate. I interpreted your seven paragraphs
and biblical citations as "loving the Lord ardently, zealously."
To repeat myself: "It simply is a fact that folks have different opinions
about who is the true and who is the counterfeit Christian. And so many
churches claim to follow the teachings of Christ and the apostles, yet
all claiming to do so, we have a proliferation of churches."
If I understand you, historically you are quite incorrect about the origins
of Christianity. There was an amazing diversity of opinion within the first
century alone. I cannot give you a history lesson in this email, but any
reputable college or seminary text book on church history, or even the
New Testament, will make this clear for you. For example,the letters written
by Paul express very different ideas than the ones later credited to him,
and most of them concern views of Christians with which he did not agree,
even in churches he founded. And the twenty or so gospels that did not
make it into the Bible by the fourth century but which have been preserved,
also vary. And the church fathers were constantly arguing. That's why Constantine
convened councils, to try to stop the arguing so he could get on with governing.
The IRS official told laughed when I quoted you to him that the IRS "Today
the IRS recognizes well over 2000 different 'Christian' churches, each
worshiping in its own way." There is no count of Christian churches. I
don't know how you would know how many the IRS recognizes unless there
is some kind of count or tally or list. Perhaps God knows how many churches
are tax-exempt, but apparently the IRS does not keep a count. While I have
seen various numbers identifying Christian denominations, I had not seen
a citation of "over 2000" before -- and it seemed like a figure out of
the blue. If one were to count individual congregations, we are likely
to exceed that number in Missouri alone, I would guess.
Your argument that X-1 seems simplistic to me. Suppose church A has 90%
of the truth, church B has 80%, church C has 30% and so forth. And suppose
that the 100% church no longer exists. Then it is X-X. In fact, many churches
are in substantial agreement about doctrine, and many about polity. The
Roman Catholic Church is such an interesting example since it now recognizes
the Orthodox communions, and of course the ecclesiastical situation is
far more complex than I can go into here. And how to worship correctly?
The Roman Church, like every church, has evolved in its worship practices,
so I remain uncertain of how you can say that "God established a worship
system" and implied we must keep it when no one worships the way the early
churches did, or can.
I am grateful to you for seeing my point about diversity, even if you continue
to find diversity troublesome. I presume you have found what you consider
to be the one true church and I congratulate you. Those who find a spiritual
path that works for them are to be admired. My view is that with greater
diversity, the chance for people finding a good fit is greater. And I don't
know who has the authority to compel others as to which church is "counterfit,"
at least not in America.
I am skeptical about your solution to our over-secularistic society: "
to dig deeper into Scripture, learn the truth and follow it." The Scripture
is exceedingly difficult, as a compilation of often contradictory ancient
texts produced in ways most people do not understand and do not have
the background and will not take the time to study. Sola Scriptura does
not work anymore for most people.
So while I am grateful to you for acknowledgment of the fact that diversity
exists, and that you can respect people without agreeing with their views,
if I understand you, you feel there is one correct church. My problem is
that many churches claim this single status. Even those who claim
to follow Scripture literally or claim to teach what the apostles taught
have different interpretations of it.
So my question for you is does one determine which church is true? And
how does God handle all those who have not been given the gift of finding
the true church?
Awaiting your answer, With appreciation, And with gratitude for you remembering
me from an evolution debate, Respectfully,
GEORGE
C continued
Mr. Barnet, Why do I suddenly feel like I'm up to my armpits in alligators?
I thought we had put the IRS behind us. As I explained in my last email,
"I never said the IRS has a list." Apparently we (you, me and your IRS
official) all agree that the IRS does recognize "well over" 2000 churches.
You said you have seen various numbers identifying Christian denominations.
I imagine it would be well over 2000!
Your seizing that statement and making an issue of it is a red herring
and overlooks my point - "one-size-fits-all does not respect individual
needs" is still the crux of the matter. Our duty is not to find a church
that agrees with us (For there is going to come a time when people won't
listen to the truth but will go around looking for teachers who will tell
them just what they want to hear. 2 Tim 4:3) Our duty
is to obey, not to fashion a church acceptable to our whims. I am
convinced diversity does not strengthen but dilutes Godly worship.
It is the duty of man to obey God and accept His commandments.
<<So my question for you is (how) does one determine which church
is true?>>
As to your first question, I'll quote a learned scribe, "My point is not
to decide for you or anyone else who is right."
Church doctrine and conduct can be found throughout the New Testament.
If a sincere individual were to ask me how one finds salvation I would
readily go over the examples of Christian conversion in the Bible, starting
with Acts 2. However, in your case you are simply baiting me and
would argue with any response I gave. So, to save us both time, I'll pass,
thank you.
<<And how does God handle all those who have not been given the gift
of finding the true church?>>
As to the second question, I'll remind you of the 7th chapter of Matthew's
Gospel. Verses 15-20 warn us of false prophets in sheep's clothing. They
worked hard for Christ but he said he never knew them.
Apparently Christ found diversity to be unacceptable and expelled those
who followed a different gospel. How does one find the correct gospel?
If, as you say, the Bible is a mish-mash of misinterpretations and contradictions
perhaps God is incapable of informing people of what He wants.
If I'm not mistaken, your point was that diverse arguments affecting the
early church proves wide-ranging opinions were normal. Yes, there were
disagreements but it is my impression the arguments are in the Bible for
our learning and, for the most part, had a resolution. For example,
in the matter of circumcision the former Jews argued to keep the old Law.
This was resolved in favor of the law of liberty, as Mosaic Law was no
longer valid.
If you support diversity you are saying it is acceptable to support anyone's
version of doctrine. To say, "My interpretation is just as
good as yours" is to encourage confusion. On the other hand Paul teaches
that it is important to obey the doctrine that was delivered and to avoid
those that cause division.
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have
obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions
and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid
them.
How do his followers identify and avoid those that cause division? According
to you all opinions are acceptable.
With all due respect you appear cynical about the veracity of Scripture.
Having taught Bible and church history as well as world religions in seminary
I'm sure you know the Bible claims to be the "God breathed." Regardless
of how it was passed down through the centuries if God is not capable of
providing us with the information he wants He is not as powerful as we
suppose and our faith is in vain.
Mr. Barnet, it is not my intention to continue a dialogue that has existed
for over 2000 years. Many agree with your viewpoint, some do not. You tout
diversity and encourage various faith traditions. I suggest there is a
way to find unity within Scripture. I expect we can agree to disagree.
In the meantime I look forward to reading your weekly column well into
the future and hope you find what you are looking for. Respectfully,
VERN
continued --
Dear
Mr Cook, I must owe you an apology for not understanding you and not making
myself clear. I'll try again.
1. Regarding the "list," I should have avoided using the word. I simply
do not know how you can count items without having a list. I remain perplexed
by your guess of over 2000, and I, mistakenly, thought I was focusing on
the larger issue, namely, that the IRS does not count or have any figure
of how many churches there are. There are other sources for such speculation,
but not the IRS.
2. My intent in asking you for the church you identify as the true one
was to congratulate you and let you know at least some of the things that
I admire about that church. (I have studied many and have friends in many,
and thought there was a very good chance I would be able to please you
in this way.
3. I did not mean to say the "Bible is a mishmash of interpretations."
Rather I meant to say there are many interpretations of the Bible. You
are correct to site my view that there are many contradictions
among the books of the Bible.
4. I did not mean to say that wide-ranging expressions of Christianity
in the early centuries were "normal," but I did mean to say they existed,
that they were not resolved, that new ones kept arising, and were severe
into the Fourth Century, and have continued ever since, with various degrees
of note, such as 1054 when the Eastern and Western Churches anathematized
each other, and in the 16th Century with the Reformation. Disputes obviously
are numerous into our own time. There has never been an earthly single,
unified Christian church embracing all who, either organizationally or
theologically were in agreement. This history is paralleled in most other
world religions.
5. I have never said it makes no difference what you believe, and yet you
understand me thus: " If you support diversity you are saying it is acceptable
to support anyone's version of doctrine." I do not agree with your characterization
of my position. This is like saying that it makes no difference what food
you eat. If you are lactose intolerant or have a cholesterol problem or
allergic to peanuts, it indeed makes a difference. I support diversity
precisely because it does make a difference what you believe, just as I
am glad there are many food options. It is important for people to find
what works for them. And learning about various options can improve spiritual
health, even if you learn that you wish to avoid a particular option, and
if you find that an option you had not considered before may assist with
whatever your ongoing practice might be. I give examples of this in essay
#2 at http://www.cres.org/pubs/primers.htm. I humbly commend the other
brief essays on that page as well.
6. When requested, I provided a statement of my religious views to readers
in 1998. I recently reread it and found it remains quite satisfying, though
my spiritual life continues to deepen in ways beyond words. Worship and
service are very important to me.
7. Thank you for your courtesy in writing again, and for your interest
in continuing to read my column. Correspondence such as yours may not produce
agreement, but it may help me learn to express myself with greater accuracy
and care. With best wishes,
LOIS
G wrote--
Yes St. Paul spoke of diversity, but there is no way he would have accepted
the ones who do not accept the literal bodily resurrection of Jeses.
He wouldn't have written 1 Corinthians l5 if he accepted that. In
one translation he said "And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith
is useless, ane you are still under condemnation for your sins".
VERN
replied--
My point: Would Paul have accepted Lutherans? Catholics? Orthodox? Copts?
Methodists? Episcopalians? Baptists? etc? If your understanding, based
on the scripture you cite is correct, then it would seem he would embrace
them all. Diversity, not unity, in the Body of Christ.
As for how one understands the Resurrection, including what Paul meant
by body, well, that is obviously an issue debated within many Christian
circles. One can certainly interpret the Church as the raising of Christ.
This may not be your interpretation or mine, but it is a possible interpretation.
Thanks for reading and for writing.
LOIS
G wrote again--
Why talk about fractured definitions when it was quite clear that all of
these witnesses mentioned in this chapter did not see the church body but
His own resurrected body with the nail marks?
VERN
replied again--
Perhaps I am confused about the subject of our discussion. My point was
that there is diversity within Christianity, as there is diversity within
other faiths.
You
seem to want to argue about whether the Resurrection was a literal bodily
resurrection or not. I am really not interested in arguing with you about
that. I am glad you have an opinion which is important to you. My point
is that within Christianity you can find, concerning the Resurrection,
those who interpret the Resurrection various ways. That is a fact. I am
not arguing which point of view is correct. That is not my point. You may
feel that Christians who interpret the Resurrection as the Church are wrong,
and you may want to argue with them. But I am not interested in having
that argument with you since that is not what I was writing about. I was
writing about the fact of diversity, not which view is correct or how the
Bible is to be interpreted.
With best wishes for your own spiritual path, and gratitude for your reading
and thinking about my column,
LOIS
G wrote again--
You listed several types of diversity within Christianity and referred
to Paul's treatment of this. What I was trying to say was that there
is a limit to diversity. There are requirements for a Christian to
accept. It was very evident to me in Chapter 15 that Paul is defining
Christian belief which must always include the bodily resurrection or you
are still lost in your sins, so what value is Christianity to you?
In other words I do not think he would accept this belief. It is
something other than Christianity. Many don't want to accept what
the Bible says, and make up their own theology.
VERN
replied again--
I am not empowered to tell people what to believe, nor am I wise enough.
It is a fact that people differ on the subject you mention. You may condemn
them, but that does not change the fact that they have different views
than yours. That is all that I am saying. People have different views of
what the Bible is saying. What appears clear to one person one way appears
clear to another person another way.
To pick another example, here is a defense of slavery based on the Bible,
from a forthcoming book I've been reviewing by Anton Jacobs. And remember
what Abraham Lincoln said of the North and the South: "Both read the same
Bible and pray to the same God." The fact is, people have disagreements.
James Henry Hammond was a governor of South Carolina and a United States
Senator prior to the Civil War. But what he’s most remembered for now in
accounts of American history are his well-reasoned, cogent, clear defenses
of slavery. And one of his most reasonable defenses of slavery, written
in about 1858, defends it on biblical grounds.
Hammond writes that “the first question we have to ask ourselves is whether
[slavery] is contrary to the will of God as revealed to us in his Holy
Scriptures—the only certain means given us to ascertain his will.” Hammond
recites the seventeenth verse of the twentieth chapter in Exodus: “Thou
shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s
wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass,
nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” This is the tenth commandment. And
Hammond points out that the plain meaning is that you should not “disturb
your neighbor in the enjoyment of his property,” and, furthermore, this
sacred scripture recognizes manservants and maidservants as “consecrated
property.”
Then Hammond says it cannot be denied that the Hebrews were authorized
by God to own slaves, and he refers to Leviticus, chapter 25. In that chapter
the Hebrews are permitted to acquire slaves from the nations around them
and from the aliens resident among them, and to keep those slaves as property
that can be inherited by their children.
Furthermore, Hammond continues, in biblical times, including the New Testament
period, slavery even “in its most revolting form was everywhere visible,”
and it is not spoken against in any way in the Bible, even to suggest it
should be less cruel. Rather, slavery seems to be regarded “as an established
. . . inevitable condition of human society,” and “they never hinted at
such a thing as its termination on earth.” Why, even “St. Paul actually
apprehended a runaway slave and sent him [back] to his master!” Hammond
concludes his argument with these sentiments:
It is impossible, therefore, to suppose that slavery is contrary to the
will of God. It is equally absurd to say that American slavery differs
in form or principle from that of the chosen people. We accept the Bible
terms as the definition of our slavery, and its precepts as the guide of
our conduct . . . . I think, then, I may safely conclude, and I firmly
believe, that American slavery is not only not a sin, but especially commanded
by God through Moses and approved by Christ through his Apostles. And here
I might close its defense; for what God ordains and Christ sanctifies should
surely command the respect and toleration of man. / Best wishes,
LOIS
G wrote again--
It is true that St. Paul chose not to take on the social system of the
day although he counselled how to deal with it on a personal level which
could be applied to many situations we have today. That does not
have anything to do with the occurance which changed the defeated apostles
into the men who changed the world. They would not have died for
a saviour still in the grave. I will bow to your difficulty in judging
whether these people are Christians - only to say that they have settled
for a very weak religion, one without power (perhaps because they can't
accept miracles). So we are back where we started. Yes there
is diversity, but there are also basic beliefs as plainly stated by St.
Paul. Thank you for your time and input.
VERN
replied again--
Thanks for your efforts at recognizing my position about diversity. I respect
yours in finding one true path to the divine.
GABRIELMICHAEAL
wrote
on 7/14/2010 --
The statement "Christianity, as a whole, exhibits no unity of belief, of
governance, of worship, of moral expectations, nor of practice" is false.
For 1500 years there was only one Christian Faith. The man credited as
the first protestant or diversifier if you will (Martin Luther) said this:
If
Christ had not intrusted all power to one man the church would not have
been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would
have been able to say he was led by the holy spirit. This is what the heretics
did. Christ therefore wills his power be exercised by one man, the Pope,
to whom he has committed it. He has made this power so strong that he looses
all the powers of Hell itself against it so it becomes clearer that this
power is really from God and not from man. Whoever breaks away from this
unity and order of power let them not boast for they know not what evil
they do.
VERN
replied
--
The disputes over the nature of the Trinity, arguments over which books
were authoritative scripture, whether Christians were obliged to follow
this or that demand of Jewish law, the Montanist controversy, the role
of asceticism, the disputes about church governance, Ebionism, Gnosticism,
Manichaeism, Arianism, Donatism, Pelagianism, Monarchianism, Sabellianism,
Macedonianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism and other arguments in the first
few centuries are examples where Christianity lacked a unity of belief.
And in the Dark Ages there were continuing varieties of opinion. There
was the Flilioque controversy, the disputes arising from St Francis, differences
between Bonaventure and Aquinas, etc. Any competent church history will
discuss these and many other examples of differing opinions long before
the Reformation.
MARK_ETAZ
wrote on 7/14/2010 —
I do agree that unity is of paramount importance in the church. However,
we should not sacrifice truth for the sake of unity. The Christian church
has asked for 2000 years, "What is a Christian". We would be wise to consider
their ideas, debates, creeds, etc. There are certain essential doctrines
that every Christian must believe. You say Christianity "exhibits no unity
of belief, of governance, of worship, of moral expectations, nor of practice".
That's a stretch! Don't ALL Christians use the Bible, look to Jesus, worship,
and pray? To say there are NO commonalities is silly. You say, "A one-size-fits-all
faith does not respect our individual spiritual needs". Oh the consumerist
attitude. Religion is not like Wal-Mart, where you go and pick whatever
you like. Christianity is about GOD not YOU. Your interpretation of 1 Cor.
12:12 is incorrect. Clearly Paul is not explaining "our encounters with
the sacred". The previous verses (1 Cor. 12:1-11) are about spiritual gifts.
There are many; however, Paul says the different gifts have one source,
the Holy Spirit. So, the different parts of the body are the gifts and
the one body is the Holy Spirit. Read the text, and use your brain. Don't
put words into Paul's mouth. You mention that some "believe in the literal
bodily resurrection of Jesus; others understand the resurrection as an
allegory". How does that sit with Paul? He says in the same book, "And
if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your
faith"
MARK_ETAZ
wrote on 7/14/2010 —
sorry, my previous post was cut short: There are essential doctrines
that one MUST believe or else you are not a Christian. The essential Christian
doctrines are basically as follow: Jesus is God, Man is sinful, Sin separates
us from God, God gave us the Bible, God is Father, Son, and Spirit, Jesus
rose from the dead, Jesus is a physical person, Jesus will return, and
God will judge the earth and make it perfect again. There are many other
things that are non-essentials. Christians differ on the non-essentials
and that is ok. As Augustine said, "in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters,
liberty; in all things, charity." He said it quite elegantly. Who would
have thought, this issue was addressed 1600 years ago!
THEISTJD
wrote on 7/14/2010 —
Since Vern has previously stated that he is NOT a Christian, how is it
that he presumes to be telling Christians what they believe or don't believe?
Notice how he blatantly rips the quote from Paul out of context, so as
to minimalize the role of Christ.
Face it, a lot of local freethinkers think Vern is an atheist, and he seems
to think this is a big secret.
TRAPBLOCK
wrote
on 7/15/2010 —
And yet Mr. Barnet, in spite of all the heresies you mention that The Church
has fought and and in some cases is still fighting... the same one universal
Church Christ founded remains. It's almost like Jesus was telling the truth
when he said "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
What did Tertullian mean when he thundered that he was 'heir of the Apostles"?
Like all the early church fathers, he saw himself as the inheritor and
protector of a certain patrimony: a revelation from God regarding His singular
work of redemption in Jesus Christ.
"Jesus Christ promised to preserve the Church from error. If His prediction
and promises were false, then he would not be God, since God cannot lie.
Christ said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' If therefore the Church
falls into error, the gates of hell certainly would prevail against it."
(My Catholic Faith, p. 144).
"Our Blessed Lord, in constituting St. Peter Prince of His Apostles, says
to him: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Christ makes here a solemn
prediction that no error shall ever invade His Church, and if she fell
into error the gates of hell certainly prevailed against her." (The Faith
of Our Fathers, p. 55).
GABRIELMICHAEAL
wrote
on 7/15/2010 —
"Taking their cue from St. Paul, the early Christians saw the unity of
the Church as an enduring sign of the unity of Christ's divine and human
natures, and of the unity of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. The idea
is central to the earliest documents, such as the Didache and St. Clement's
Letter to the Corinthians (look them up), but finds perhaps the most famous
and moving patristic expression in St. Cyprian's tract 'On the Unity of
the Church'." - Mike Aquilina.
What you call 'diversity' the Church calls heresy. The Truth today is the
same thing it was yesterday and the same thing it will be tomorrow. You
may call it what you want but it doesn't change it.
The history of the Church is the continual conflict between those inside
and outside the Church seeking to rob her of the deposit of Truth built
upon the apostles... and that's it.
VERN
replied to the above postings--
If I’m an atheist, I’m a strange one. I go to church each Sunday, recite
the creeds, pray the Lord's Prayer, and take communion with the understanding
that the wafer is the very body of Christ and the wine His very blood.
My faith may be more nuanced than some may be prepared to recognize, but
I don't write about my faith particularly; I write about all faiths.
When I recently spoke to a group of atheists, the title of my address was
“A God Atheists Can Believe In.” Surely most people involved in religious
discussions recognize that much depends on the definition of terms. People
have categorized me all sorts of ways, according to the limits of their
own understandings.
As for the unity of the Church: disagreements are clear from within the
Book of Acts and the Letters of Paul and others attributed to him. The
winners of disputes called the losers heretics, but that does not mean
they were not Christians. For example, while the Nicene Creed adopted the
view of Athanasius, the contrary view of Arius dominated many regions of
Christendom into the Seventh Century. The statement made by one writer
that the Church was united until 1500 ignores the dramatic split between
the Roman and the Eastern Orthodox Churches by mutual excommunication in
1215. And before that there were many splinter Christian churches. For
example, the Coptic Church accepted neither the formulas of the Roman nor
the Eastern churches from 451. Numerous examples could be given. Even within
the Roman Church, a great variety of views have developed over the centuries
and within different regions.
An accurate view of the history of any faith lies in discerning the facts,
not simply deciding which theological view is correct and calling those
who agree the true Christians and deciding that those who do not agree
are unworthy to call themselves Christians. We don’t get very far if we
don’t listen for the reasons why people consider themselves to be genuine
Christians, or whatever, even if we disagree with them. I think building
understanding is more important than agreement.
TRAPBLOCK
wrote on 7/16/2010 --
In the words of the formal [I think the intended
word is former -ed.] priest of the Church
of England, Cardinal John Henry Newman, "to be deep in history is to cease
to be a protestant."
Guided by the Holy Spirit, heretics like Arius (interpreting scripture
contrary to Fathers who had gone before him), despite the fact that the
majority of the people were swayed to his 'understanding' of the Gospel
at the time, the Church in Truth prevailed... thanks be to God.
As Jesus knew (and Martin Luther later preached) when he appointed St.
Peter the head of His Church... "if Christ had not intrusted all power
to one man the church would not have been perfect because there would have
been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the
holy spirit."
"Faith comes by hearing," St. Paul said (Rom 10:17), and the early Christians
heard the Word from the men they revered as their Fathers. And the Fathers,
for their part, especially the Apostolic Fathers, saw themselves as chosen
vessels of the Gosepl, having received it intact from the Apostles. St.
Clement's words to the Corinthians ring with conviction: "The Apsotles
have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ... Christ therefore
was send forth from God and the Apostles by Christ. Both of these appointments,
then, were made in an orderly way, according the the will of God."
St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John - Jesus beloved disciple) wrote, "whoever
interprets according to his own perverse inclinations is the first born
of Satan.
VERN
replied
wrote on 7/16/2010 --
Dear trapblock: Again, my point is not to say who is right but merely that
there is a diversity of opinion as to what the truth is.
The quotations you kindly supply certainly illustrate folks vigorously
engaged in setting forth their perceptions of the truth. The curious citation
attributed to Luther is particularly interesting since Luther broke from
the church and said the Pope “would do better to sell St. Peter’s and give
the money to the poor folk who are being fleeced by the hawkers of indulgences.”
And again, "His Holiness abuses Scriptures," with Luther arguing that the
papacy was a merely human institution. I am not taking sides here but pointing
out that the history of Christianity is filled with such differences of
opinion. Reformation controversies about the Eucharist were sardonically
summarized by Voltaire: "While those who were called Papists ate God but
not bread, the Lutherans ate both bread and God. Soon after there came
the Calvinists who ate bread and did not eat God.”
I am not competent to settle such disputes but I am able to see the diversity
of opinion throughout Christian history, from the Early Church to the present
day. In fact, I think understanding why people see things differently is
in itself valuable, even if we hold to our own views.
JONHARKER
wrote on 7/17/2010 --
Trapblock, again Vern Barnett is being disingenuous when he says tht his
point is not to say "who is right but merely that there is a diversity
of opinion as to what to truth is.".
What Vern is saying is that he is a relativist, and implying that there
IS NO truth.
But even looking at his own statement, a mere diversity of opinion as to
the truth does not mean that the truth is therefore itself relative.
But his statement that he is "not competent to settle such disputes" does
not inhibit him in is regular effort to weaken Christianity.
He thinks he is being clever by hiding what he really thinks but the problem
is that what he thinks in not the secret he thinks it is, as has been pointed
out, and continuing to try to hide it reflects on his own motives, IMHO.
VERN
responded --:
Dear JonHarker, I respectfully suggest that this discussion will be more
profitable by discussing the issues raised rather than by personal aspersions.
But I am grateful to you for allowing me to clarify the intent of the column.
I did not say or mean to imply that, as you put it, "there is NO truth."
On the contrary, I am simply saying that folks have different ideas about
what the truth is and we can often benefit from understanding those with
whom we disagree.
I have explained four reasons why I hesitate to set forth my own views
in a previous column even while honoring the request for a statement of
them in the follow-up column. You can find those columns at
http://www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view.
I seek to write about many views, many of which I personally disagree with,
because I think it is beneficial for us to understand what fragile and
fallible creatures we are as we stand before the Ultimate which is beyond
any encapsulation./ With best wishes,
JONHARKER
wrote on 7/18/2010 --
There are no aspersions, Vern, just statements of fact.
As to your personal views, which you think are a secret, you state that
you have clarfied them in a follow up column and give a link, but I see
no such clarification there.
Why don't you state clearly where we can find this statement of your views
and quit playing games?
VERN
responded --
Dear JonHarker-- I just checked the link I provided and it is working.
Be sure not to include a final period in the URL. The two columns appeared
July 22 and July 29, 1998. If you have technical problems, you can ask
a computer-savvy friend about how to access the site, or send me your email
and I'll email the columns to you, or send me your address and I'll mail
a "hard-copy" to you of the column as it appeared in The Star. Comments
here are limited to 1500 characters, so that is why I present these alternatives
to you.
I do not try to hide my views. But the column is a place to present many
views, not just my own. I do not try to convince folks than I am right
(I am quite fallible). I am flattered that you express so much interest
in my personal views. Most people are more interested in developing their
own views, which is why I seek to write a column with many "Faiths and
Beliefs" to stimulate spiritual growth.
With best wishes,
THEISTJD
wrote on 7/19/2010 --
Vern, I don't think the statement was that your articles could not be found,
I think it was that there was no clarification seen there.
For one thing, those articles are some 12 years old, and I know you have
stated different things, both in print and to local groups, since then.
So perhaps you could give a current clarification.
VERN
responded --
Dear TheistJD-- Although I have learned a great deal in the past
12 years, I would not have cited the two columns July 22 and July 29, 1998,
if they did not continue to reflect my views today. The columns can be
found at http://www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view .
I would be interested in knowing why my views seen so important to others.
You seem to have found your own spiritual path, and I never presume that
my path works for anyone else, so I will have no need to defend my own
beliefs since I do not urge them on others, and my experience is that spiritually
mature people do not need to impose their views on others or tear others
down. But thank you for the flattering attention.
With best wishes, Vern Barnet
Dear TheistJD-- To the previous post, I should have added that I am not
aware of writing or saying anything that contradicts the statement of views
cited. My faith may be more nuanced than some may be prepared to recognize.
People have categorized me all sorts of ways, according to the limits of
their own understandings. To a very young child in my first parish, as
he was just becoming acquainted with the news, I was his “Prime Minister.”
Older folks unacquainted with the subtleties and scriptures and histories
of their own faiths, much less other faiths, may take words from one context
and wrench them into another, or often not examine carefully the syntax
of the expression. Surely when we discuss the Holy, the Infinite, it is
appropriate to recognize how inadequate words can be.
I don’t often write about my own faith particularly; I write about all
faiths over the course of the series. So in presenting someone else's views,
I may not be presenting my own. The name of my column is "Faiths and Beliefs"
in the plural.
Certainly I may make mistakes, and I am grateful for corrections.
JINHARKER
wrote on 7/19/2010 --
Vern your views are important to others for the same reason that the views
of others are important to you.
After all, you often are "presenting someone else's views".
Why is that?
VERN
responded --
Dear JonHarker -- What a nice thing to say! Thank you! And I guess the
assignment I have, to present others' views, answers your question of why
I seek to present a variety of faith perspectives in the "Faiths and Beliefs"
column series. Again, thank you.
JONHARKER
wrote on 7/20/2010 --
You are welcome, Vern. But your answer now puzzles me.
You see presenting other views as an "assignment"? If so, that does not
really sound like you are actually interested in those views, but have,
as I suspect, some other agenda.
And, seriously, you have repreatedly said that you are "flattered" by the
"attention" and "thanked" me twice in one paragraph. That all seems a little
arrogant, IMHO.
I am simply trying to find out what you really believe, and you keep dancing
around it. The ariticles that you say explain your views are vague and
nebulous and seem deliberately written to avoid saying anything that could
be taken as a defintie answer.
Of course, you don't admit that there are definite answers, and have said
that you views are often not the same "two days in a row".
And yet I remember you talking about Russell's WIANAC book, a superifical
book indeed, and how it impressed you so much.
Look, Vern, we know you are not a Christian, and a lot of freethinkers
that YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO have said you are an atheist, so why don't you
just come out with it instead of blowing smoke?
VERN
responded --
Dear
JonHarker--
1.
I enthusiastically accept the "assignment" to which you refer.
2.
I am sorry if I appear arrogant in thanking you. I was not conscious of
arrogance. It felt sincere.
3.
You find my statement of faith inadequate. That is exactly why I do not
suggest it contains views that will work for others.
4.
I agree with you about Russell. In the column I said, "Later I decided
what he wrote was besides the point. His view of religion was too narrow.
He said fear is the basis of religion, but I think religion arises from
wonder."
5.
If I am not a Christian, it is strange that I never miss mass on Sunday,
accept communion as the very body and blood of Christ, and have spent years
studying the scriptures. Yes, I have been called an atheist, but so were
the early Christians because they did not worship the Roman gods, and modern
theologians like Paul Tillich was called an atheist because for him God
was not a Supreme Being but something much greater, namely the Ground of
Being Itself.
6.
It is quite possible that your religious categories and mine are incommensurable.
As the statement of faith indicates, I begin my own thinking with the experience
of the Holy. My faith may be more nuanced than some may be prepared to
recognize. People have categorized me all sorts of ways, according to the
limits of their own understandings.
If
you really want to know what I believe, will you join me for worship this
Sunday?
Best
wishes, Vern Barnet
JONHARKER
wrote on 7/20/2010 --
Vern I, am quite suprised by your answer, and, I must confess, somewhat
impressed.
But what continues to puzzle me that this is nothing like what you said
at the Midwest Skeptics meeting a couple of weeks ago.
Also, you ask, "if I am not a Christian" then why do you go to mass, study
the scriptures, etc. That's a good question. Do you think that doing those
things make you a Christian?
Frankly, it you really believe in Christ (and I suspect that you have some
nuanced term there and don't accept the resurrection as a literal physical
event, although of course I could be wrong) then you have an obligation
to confess it when people ask. To do otherwise would be to deny him.
As for joining you, I don't see why not depending on how far it is and
so forth.
VERN
responded --
Dear
JonHarker--
If
you want to go to church with me, email me at vern@cres.org with your phone
number for me to call you to make arrangements. I want to make clear I
am not seeking to change your religious perspective at all but trying to
respond as best I can to your insistent inquiries.
As
for your view of my obligations, I respectfully disagree. I am not obliged
to tell people I don't know whether I wear boxers or briefs, how I voted
in the last election, or details of my personal spiritual life. I do not
have to accept your categories of thought for my own faith journey. A person
whose thought is confined to a two-dimensional surface will always find
the sum of the interior angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees. But one
contemplating the exterior surface of a three-dimensional sphere knows
the sum is always more than 180 degrees. We both have rights to spiritual
domains of the dimensions that fit us best. Yours may be different than
mine.
As
for the talk I gave to the Skeptics group, you can find my notes at http://www.cres.org/pubs/God.htm
. You will find indeed the very basis for what I have written to you, and
anyone who understood my talk would not be surprised by what I wrote, and
wrote previously in these postings to an earlier inquirer five days ago
which apparently you did not read.
Even
though I have many other pressing obligations, I try to be faithful to
respond to readers as appropriate.
With best wishes, Vern Barnet
JONHARKER
wrote on 7/20/2010 --
Vern, it is not my view of your obligations that is the issue. If you are
a Christian, Jesus said that you are to confess it when asked. Whether
you wear boxers, or how you voted is not the issue.
But, reading back through your words, I do not see where you have actually
said you are a Christian, but have just answered cryptically, in terms
of "well, if I am not a Christian, then why do I go to mass, or study the
bible, etc."
As to the talk to the Skeptic group, I HEARD it and its not what you are
saying here.
But I understand that you have to keep this front up, because for you to
take a stand could offend some people, I guess. And who knows? Maybe that
would hurt donations or whatever. This, of course, is just my opinion,
to which, as you say, I am entitled.
VERN
responded --
To conclude, for my part, this series of exchanges:
Let us cherish the right of each person to one’s own opinion and bless
each in seeking a beautiful spiritual path.
For me, being a person of faith is not in what one says but in how one
attempts to live, in one's behavior; "by their fruits ye shall know them."
(Matt 7:20.)
Perhaps the discussion of God at the Skeptics group, and the notes, may
be incommensurable with the sensibilities of some.
I have earnestly sought to respond to questions raised in this arena. However,
it seems I am incapable of saying what some might want me to say in the
way they might want me to say it. I do not find all writers here qualified
to instruct me as to my religious obligations. My faith may be more nuanced
than some may be prepared to recognize. When one party accuses the other
of "some other agenda," "being disingenuous," being a "relativist, and
implying that there IS NO truth," said to be "hiding" reflecting on one's
"motives," "playing games," "wishy washy talk," "simplistic" answers, that
a person "won't engage you in discussion: he likes to be above it all and
just sit back and act superior while others argue," and other statements
which may not convince the party against whom these words are directed
that openness to genuine dialogue is possible.
For my part a back-and-forth public discussion has reached an end,
My email address appears at the end of every column where communication
is not limited to 1500 characters.
825. 100707 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Our American Heritage
For me, the American heritage has always
meant both the blessings and blemishes of religion.
The blessings include Christian
spiritual ideals brought to these shores in Colonial times. The First Amendment
transformed the setting of these blessings from sectarianism to pluralism
and guaranteed religious liberty for all.
Actually the blessings began
earlier because the nation’s founders looked also to ancient sources for
the new government, such as Athenian democracy.
With mainly European immigration,
all of Western history became a large part of the American identity.
The blemishes also began
early, among them the mistreatment of the First Nations on this continent.
President Andrew Jackson encouraged treaty violations, Indian removal and
violence to take previously recognized tribal property. The Trail of Tears
is just one example of what might be called ethnic cleansing.
Until recently, perhaps most
of us have looked to Western spiritual sources, and more recently to Eastern
traditions, to understand who we are religiously. Some Asian techniques
like yoga and meditation may be more familiar than, say, the sweat lodge
spirituality of those we have displaced from their very own soil.
Now, however, instead of
seeing savages, we begin to appreciate the sophistication of the American
Indian cultures. Some might find their sense of human relations to be superior
to the Western tradition.
But it is particularly the
indigenous reverence for nature that draws us as we see our own present
and potential environmental disasters.
Even with Boy Scout experiences
using American Indian themes, the stories of ancient Israel and Greece
have been easier for me to claim than, say, the sacred tales of the Kanza
(Kaw).
While many museums don’t
relate American to American Indian art, the galleries at the Nelson-Atkins
Museum of Art adjoin one another, repairing the split.
At last I can claim the exquisite
Nebo stone ax from Jackson County, perhaps 4,000 years old, and a more
recent Navajo concha belt, as much a part of my American heritage as Thomas
Hart Benton or Caravaggio, now on this side of the Atlantic.
Whether stone, hair, leather,
metal, shell, paint, wood, fiber, paper, glass, bone or clay, American
Indian art treats materials as sacred in themselves, assembled to reveal
a holy purpose in everyday or special use.
The “Sea Urchin Transformation”
mask, for example, posits different spiritual identities within a single
statement. Doesn’t my statement, “I’m an American,” embrace a similar soul
of transformation?
This column was cited in
the ExaminerJuly
19.
READER COMMENT
TheistJD
wrote on 7/12/2010 --
Athenian "democracy" most certainly did not provide freedom for all, and
certainly did not hold that all men were created equal and endowed by their
Creator with Inalienable rights.
Elitists who practiced infanticide (and of course abortion of the "defective"
comes close to that) are hardly role models.
I wonder if the day comes when parents start aborting babies with a "gay
gene" if the Pro Choicers will start to see the light then?
Vern
responded --
Athenian democracy was indeed flawed. Slaves and women were not citizens.
Still, some who shaped this nation found inspiration in the short-lived
experiments in Athens as opposed to various other forms of government.
Washington and Jefferson, for example, favored the Greek style of architecture
for federal buildings from their admiration of classical antiquity. It
is also worth noting that some American Indian tribes may have practiced
a more genuine form of democracy, including women, and some have suggested
that the US federal form of government was influenced by an interpretation
of some Indian arrangements.
824. 100630 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Rich Political Dimensions
The Declaration of Independence says governments
derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
This contrasts with the idea
that governments are ordained by God. This second view may be supported
by Biblical passages like Daniel 5:21: “the Most High God rules the kingdom
of men, and sets over it whom He chooses.” And Romans 13:1 says, “Let every
person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority
except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”
§ Christian theologians
like Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Roger Williams have addressed this issue
in very different ways. And other faiths have also considered how the state
and religion should relate.
§ During the last days
of the Nixon presidency, I knew little about Hinduism. I assumed it was
solely concerned with personal matters. I attended a theatrical version
of the Ramayana, one of the two great Hindu epics. I was amazed by the
parallels between its scathing criticism of corrupt government and the
Watergate charges.
§ Confucianism is largely
focused on social order. If the ruler will only bow to the South, where
the gods reside, the population will imitate him and show respect to their
superiors.
§ The Baha’i faith encourages
peoples to assure equality between men and women and among races.
§ Some Nichiren forms
of Buddhism have identified themselves with Japanese nationalism, as has
State Shinto.
§ Many American Muslims
find the U.S. Constitution to be a near-perfect expression of the political
dimensions of their faith which opposes autocracy.
The First Amendment both
guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits government establishment of
religion. Scholarly literature overwhelmingly credits this balance for
the vigorous role religion plays in our country.
My work has brought me in
contact with elected officials and governmental staffs on local, state
and national levels. Despite the scoundrels that appear in every profession,
the overwhelming desire of most of those I’ve known is to serve the public
as best they can.
For example, earlier this
year I was asked to give the invocation at an awards ceremony for the City
of Kansas City employees’ Charity Campaign. I was astonished to learn that,
with fewer workers than the previous year, a tight economy and reduced
salary budgets, more money was contributed than before.
The generosity of those behind
the desk and answering the phone deserves recognition as a manifestation
of the silent civic faith that is the best of America.
CRES WEBSITE NOTES:
The Charity
Campaign: "Compassion in Action . . . Every 1 Matters" was led by
Mark VanLoh (Aviation Department) and Gary O'Bannon (Human Resource Department),
with special thanks offered to Cindy Matlock, Kalia McKinley, Kathy Whalen,
and Caryn Whitmore for their coordination of the campaign. The awards ceremony
was held 2010 January 8.
Thirteen departments
received awads for making 100% of their goal; two departments for making
90% and three departments for making 70%.
There are 325
fewer City employees than the previous year (4,395 employees in 2009; 4,720
employees in 2008); yet only 64 fewer employees gave to the campaign (decrease
from 2,166 in 2008 to 2,107 in 2009).
Hee are some
examples of the charitable organizations designated by the contributors.
Childrens' Mercy Hospital, Harvesters, United Way, Earth Share of Missouri
and the following non-federation-affiliated organizations that serve a
local need: Bishop Sullivan Center, City Union Mission, Habitat for Humanity,
Kansas City Rescue Mission, Local 42 Community Assistance, Midwest Foster
Care and Adoption Assn, United Negro College Fund-Kansas City, WEB DuBois
Learning Center, Kansas City Employee Memorial Fund, Kansas City Fountain
Operations
Even though
wages were frozen, 510 employees (24% of total givers) received lapel pins
for pledging 3/4 of 1% or more of their annual salary; 297 of the 510 employees
pledged 1% or more which was an increase of 28 employees over the previous
year.
READER COMMENT
TheistJD
wrote on 6/30/2010 --
Unfortunately, Vern Barnett mispreresents the Declaration a little bit.
Sure, it asserts that governments derive their just powers from the consent
of the governed, but it also leads with saying that people are endowed
by their creator with INALIENABLE rights...which means those rights don't
come from other people or the government but from the creator.
Now, you can argue that this was a Deist concept of the Creator...although
why would a Deist god endow anyone with rights?...but it is certainly not
an expresson of atheism and derails the claim that rights come from the
government or anyone else.
Thats the part Vern leaves out...that the JUST powers of government, altough
driving from the people...do not provide our rights in the first place.
The Declaration is definitely not an atheistic document, althoug many local
freethinkers believe that Vern is himself an atheist.
Vern's
response on 6/30/2010 --
TheistJD may be confusing the Constitution with the earlier Declaration
of Independence. The Constitution is not an atheist document, nor a theist
document. God is never mentioned, one way or other other. However, as the
column points out, the First amendment guarantees freedom of religion and
prohibits governmental establishment of religion.
It would be interesting to hear readers comment on the Biblical quotations.
GabrielMichaeal
wrote on 7/1/2010 --
The Catholic (Universal) Church teaches... If authority belongs to the
order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment
of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."
The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they
serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose
nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the
fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations
on which they have been imposed.
Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not
behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral
force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility."
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with
right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls
short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not
so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.
Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good
of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain
it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the
moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such
a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."
TheistJD
wrote on 7/2/2010 4:50:57 PM:
Vern, we are talking about DECLARATION, which begins with the statement
that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.
There is no confusion with the Constiution, I didn't even mention it.
YOU are the one who is ignoring the plain statements of the Declaration,
and pretending that there is some confusion.
And why do you try to hide your own views; all the local freethinkers know
where you are coming from; you are fooling anyone anymore.
Vern's
response on 7/3/2010 --
Dear
TheistJD--
I do not wish to argue about the Declaration of Independence verses the
Constitution. My point about the Constitution is that it is a "secular"
document that governs our country. My point about the Declaration is not
the source of human rights which you emphasize but rather the source of
the legitimacy of government which was the point in the column. I think
this is an important distinction which I commend to you.
I have explained four reasons why I hesitate to set forth my own views
on a previous column even while honoring the request for a statement of
them in the follow-up column you can find those columns at http://www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view.
I am used to having my own opinions misrepresented. I have been called
an atheist, a Hindu, a conservative Christian, a liberal Christian, a Buddhist,
etc. My son was attacked on my behalf, I have received death threats. I
try to live my life with integrity which may be nuanced in ways others
do not understand.
My email appears at the end of every column and I it would be best if you
wish to continue the conversation to do so through that means.
Best wishes,Vern
Clancy
Rust wrote on 7/3/2010 --
The context of Daniel 5: 21 is the restoration of Nebuchadnezzar to the
throne of Persia after he had been disciplined by God. We as Christians
fully understand that God can appoint whomsover he wills over any kingdom
here on earth. That in no way means that God has appointed all rulers of
alll governments here on earth. Satan has appointed many of them as he
has authority here on earth as well as in the first and second heavens.
God rules the third heaven. Satan even offered Christ all the kingdoms
of this earth when Christ was being tempted 40 days in the desert (Matthew
4: 8-9 and Luke 4: 5-7). There is a difference between what God does and
what God just allows.
Regarding Romans 13: 1-2 Christians are to obey government but to a point.
In Acts 4: 18-20 we see Peter and John fully DISOBEY the governmental,
religious command "not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus".
We are to do the same. There are many places in the world today where Christians
are being murdered because they speak in the name of Jesus. Many governments
forbid this. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE GOVERNMENTS ( i. e. North Korea,
all Islamic states, China, India, Malaysia and more) have a person on their
throne who has been placed there by God. God is His wisdom may have allowed
the placement. The mission of every Christian is to spread the Gospel throughout
the entire world.
Unfortunately, many who call themselves Christians are not born again and
do not comprehend the mission. Those all should read "Have you heard the
Four Spiritual Laws" by the late Bill Bright and is available at Campus
Crusade for Christ and "Steps To Peace With God" by Billy Graham and is
available at Billy Graham.org.
People must be told the honest fact there is no way to heaven except through
Jesus Christ. Those who preach otherwise are misinformed and need to hear
the truth not some religious statement otherwise. If they believe the silly,
religious statement instead of Jesus Christ they will join those saying
those statements in hell. . . .
Vern's
response on 7/3/2010 --
Thank you for setting forth your own interpretation of the Biblical passages
I asked about. I see you employ a method of interpretation that uses historical
context, other Biblical passages, and your opinions about today's world
in order to develop your view. Others do the same but come up with different
interpretations. It is so interesting how many different interpretations
there are of the Bible, and so many interpreters who claim each to be correct.
. . .
JonHarker
wrote on 7/5/2010 --
Sorry to hear you were threatened, Mr. Barnett. You many be aware that
believers were quite publically threatened on the Tammeus blog when told
they would end up "in a ditch" like "Jimmy Hoffa". Bill shut down his comments
section shortly after that, although the comments are archived (in the
Jan., 2010 sec.)
Of course, he shut it down finally after allowing believers to be called
all manner of names for something like two years. Go figure.
But JD is quite correct about the Declaration; in fact, without the Declaration
there would have been no Constitution.
But if people are so confused about your views, which, frankly, I doubt,
then maybe the problem is with you just not plainly stating what you believe.
Or don't believe.
But are you perhaps concerned that your "faith" readership would drop off
if you were more up front about what you believe?
As for e mailing you? Thanks, but no, I prefer the discuss more open, since
in fact you publish a column in the paper; I undertand, of course, that
you would not want to see readership drop off.
Vern's
response on 7/6/2010
Dear JonHarker, respectfully I reply:
First, I did not write that the Constitution would not have been possible
without the Declaration; I grant your point happily. The point of my column
is not about the source of human rights but rather the source (the people,
not God) of the legitimacy of government, and on this matter I remain convinced
by the actual text of the Declaration which I earnestly commend.
Second, the purpose of the column is not to advance my own view but to
explore "Faiths and Beliefs" among the various spiritual traditions of
the world from the beginning of time to the current day, within the understanding
that sports, business, medicine and all aspects of culture may be part
of the story.
Third, for those interested in my own statement of faith, it can be found,
as I mentioned in the 7/7/2010 post, at http://www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view
. I do not hide my faith, but, as I say, that is not the purpose of the
column in which I have presented many views with which I personally disagree
but about which it seems important to be informed. I seek to celebrate
the many ways of approaching the ultimate mysteries of life, and I doubt
that it is terribly useful for me to seek to advance my own specific formulation
because other people have different background and experiences, and it
is clear from the multiplicity of faiths that one size does not fit all.
Are these three points helpful to you within the 1500 char max?
With best wishes, Vern Barnet
823. 100623 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Within faiths, there is diversity
This
column also appeared in the
IdahoStatesman
June 30.
Belleville
News Democrat (serving St Louis) July 3.
Tacoma
News Tribute /AP Religion News June 30.
E[lkhart]
Truth July 4.
Wichita
Eagle July 3.
CentreDaily
[State College, PA] July 1.
Deseret
News [Salt Lake City] July 3.
Fresno
Bee June 30.
Republic
(Columbus, IN) June 30
Modesto
Bee June 30
Sacramento
Bee June 30
TriCity
Herold (Washington State) June 30
Bradenton
(FL) Herold June 30
The
State (South Carolina) June 30
Raleigh-Durham
NewsObserver
Fayetteville
Observer July 11
You tell me you’re Christian. How much
information have you really given me?
Being Christian probably
means that the story of Jesus is central to your life, but I don’t know
how you worship, what you claim as your authority, how your church is organized,
or even whether you belong to a church.
You say these details are
not important, but remember, Christians have killed other Christians because
of these details. Such sorry histories and present realities persist in
many faiths. Some of these details may be important to who you are today.
§ The three main expressions
of Christianity are (Eastern) Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and various
forms of Protestantism. Some classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints (Mormonism) as Protestant; others consider it a fourth form
of Christianity.
§ Worship varies from
beautiful, elaborate forms of liturgical worship and sacramental devotion
to the moving spirituals and cadenced preaching of the black church, to
the utter simplicity and spontaneity of the Quaker meeting where folks
sit in silence until and unless someone is moved to speak, to some Appalachians
who worship by handling serpents.
§ Is tradition or the
Magisterium of your church your ultimate guide to how you live your life?
Or is the Bible your final authority, and if so, whose interpretation?
What roles do reason and cultural influences play in answering questions
of faith?
§ Is your church led
by clergy governed by bishops in apostolic succession, or by members of
the local congregation, or by a presbyterial, regional authority? Or does
your church eschew ordained leadership altogether and teach that each person
has the Inner Light? What positions may women and gay people occupy?
I’ve not yet asked doctrinal
questions such as whether you believe in a literal and eternal hell or
whether all will ultimately be saved. I’ve not yet asked about religious
issues that enter the political arena.
These questions hardly begin
to outline differences within Christianity. And other faiths may be even
more varied. Buddhism, for example, ranges from the spare meditation of
certain Zen schools to the phantasmagoric dances of some Tibetan sects.
Even atheists differ considerably.
Most faiths have enormous
internal variations. There is no single Islam, Hinduism or Judaism.
Problems within faiths, as
among them, arise from those demanding unity, uniformity or control.
Differences exist because
people need different approaches to ultimate mysteries. Seeking universal
agreement defies those mysteries. Distinction rather than conformity may
be the better blessing.
CRES WEBSITE NOTES:
An addition
question about worship is whether it is an objective act offered to God
or primarily a (subjective) benefit to the worshipper.
It is
likely we will need to clear away faulty generalizations if we want to
know how a particular faith affects someone’s way of living.Religious wars
are caused buy those who want unity, uniiformity, or control. Nowadays
we can see that enjoying diversity, even within a faith, is safer, even
blessed. Individual need.
READER
COMMENT
Violet
Bortz of Twin Falls, Idaho writes on July 4.
Vern,
I read an article in our Times News paper in Twin Falls, Idaho. It
was about how people say they are "Christians" and believe in so many different
way in their religion. I was wondering if you had any idea as to
what the solution is.
I am a member of the Church of Christ and the church stresses the importance
of unity. I don't understand how unity can be if there are so many
different ideas about many different religions. Waiting for your reply.
Lee
writes on July 3
Amazing essay! Wow, I appreciate the deep insight of this author — very
high quality, thoughtful writing — thanks Deseret News.
From the article: “Problems within faiths, as among them, arise from those
demanding unity, uniformity or control.”
pt
baker writes
a well-reasoned, well-crafted 13 paragraphs you surely did compose.
I find what you wrote helpful in illuminating the range of options, especially
within so-called consonant groups.
I am sending it to several folks: one who is just beginning to consider
the spiritual contemplative landscape, and to a few more who are
annoyingly sure of the certitude of their beliefs and the folly of mine.
I don't much like spiritual arrogance. It could mask deep running
doubts as well as anything might. The difference between belief and faith-
that distinction is overlooked by folks so very sure of their opinions.
You seem to be very easy to read and offer slants that can be opened and
explored by open-minded thinkers. thanks for this and other
writings i have found useful. --pt baker
David
Thompson writes
AMEN for today's column! This summer's trips to Seoul, Boston and
the northeast, and San Diego would have been boring in black and white
canvas. Fortunately, the divine lives in a "Crayola plus" reality. I am
blessed by the differences or nuances of belief!
Norman
Roy writes
Dear Vern...Your Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 article WITHIN FAITHS, THERE
IS DIVERSITY was excellent. I am a member of the 4th expression
of Christianity namely THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS...and
although we have a reputation of being over zealous...I for one applaud
your article that suggests there is something for everyone. Our religious
views like our political views often vary with each new individual with
whom we come in contact. I think the citizenry of the world must
align themselves with what ever works best for them. Joseph Smith,
the founder and first president of our church stated, "Let the people worship
whomever and however they wish." So it is with all of us.
Perhaps if the world could align themselves with more tolerance and less
critique...we would all fare better. Thank you for writing
your splendid article. You said in a few paragraphs what so
many of us believe but rarely have the opportunity to express.
Best Wishes.
Clancy
Rust wrote
There
are not three main expressions of Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy) as you stated. These three represent only
THEIR religion! True Christianity and the only proper expression
thereof comes only from being born again by confessing one's sin nature
and sins and receiving Jesus Christ and His virgin birth, death and resurrection
as the only possible atonement acceptable to God for one's inherited (from
Adam) sin nature and sins. True Christianity is truth and never a religion.
The three measures of meal to which you referred did indeed murder many
born again believers during the Dark Ages. Jesus in Matthew 13: 33 (Holy
Bible, King James Version) prophesied about the leaven which would control
the these three measures.
Vern
responded
I am confused by your statement below. You say "There are not three main
expressions of Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Eastern
Orthodoxy) . . . "
1. I did not say that the three main expressions of Christianity are "Eastern
Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy" -- Rather I wrote that
"The three main expressions of Christianity are (Eastern) Orthodoxy, Roman
Catholicism and various forms of Protestantism. Some classify the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) as Protestant; others
consider it a fourth form of Christianity." In my opinion it would be a
mistake to omit the "various forms of Protestantism" as you have
done and instead list "Eastern Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodoxy" as two
separate forms as you have done. The arrangement I have proposed conforms
to every knowledgeable text on the subject I have ever seen (and I have
taught in thee seminaries as well at the university at the undergraduate
and graduate level, so I am acquainted with the subject).
2. I did not distinguish between the various forms of Christianity and
"true Christianity." Many forms of Christianity claim to be the true form.
I am not qualified to decide for other people. I am glad that you have
found a form of Christianity you consider to be true. In this column I
am not particularly interested in asking who has the true form; I am more
interested in showing the variety within Christianity.
3. Please consider how most people use the word "religion" if you wish
to communicate with others. The overwhelming majority of the English-speaking
world certainly consider a Christianity a religion. This does not mean
you must, but if you wish to be understood, knowing how most people use
the word may be helpful. You may also find dozens of various definitions
and descriptions of "religion" and "spirituality" at this website useful:
http://www.cres.org/pubs/ReligionSpiritualityDescribed.htm..
. . .
I value your email, even though I have explained why I am confused by it.
I wish you well, and I appreciate your taking the trouble to write.
GabrielMichaeal
wrote on 6/25/2010 --
Martin Luther speaking on the papacy (1516)
"If Christ had not intrusted all power to one man the church would not
have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would
have been able to say he was led by the holy spirit. This is what the heretics
did. Christ therefore wills his power be exercised by one man, the Pope,
to whom he has committed it. He has made this power so strong that he looses
all the powers of Hell itself against it so it becomes clearer that this
power is really from God and not from man. Whoever breaks away from this
unity and order of power let them not boast for they know not what evil
they do."
822. 100616 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Our oil mess requires spiritual
cleanup
We Americans are addicted to oil, people
sometimes say. If so, would this be a spiritual issue?
Last month Ted Turner, CNN
founder, said, “I’m just wondering if God is telling us he doesn’t want
us to drill offshore.”
Despite controversies over
this or that particular issue, our secular society seldom wrestles with
what might enhance or degrade our nation’s spiritual condition, or even
agree what a wholesome condition might be. We often focus on immediate
personal and corporate economic benefits.
For example, Congress enacted
the popular National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, when
a former head of General Motors, Charles Wilson, was Secretary of Defense.
He was noted for saying that “what was good for our country was good
for General Motors, and vice versa.” Cars were favored over a more environmentally
friendly expanded rail system.
But in 2001, 250 Kansas Citians
concluded the Gifts of Pluralism interfaith conference by declaring, in
part, that “Nature is
to be respected, not just controlled. Nature is a process that includes
us, not a product external to us. . . . Our proper attitude toward nature
is awe, not utility.”
This perspective differs
from what Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center for the People and the
Press, reports: “Americans have a lot of faith that over the long run technology
will solve everything.”
At least three local people
of faith believe that a spiritual reorientation, rather than just technological
solutions, is required.
Chuck Gillam, a Christian,
told me, “We have one earth, the gem of God’s creation. We are given this
precious opportunity to enjoy life here. Not to care for the earth is beyond
irresponsible. It is a grave sin.”
Mary McCoy, a member of the
Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council, is agitated that some people are
worried that the price of gas will go up because of the Gulf oil spill.
“But what about the birds
— and the entire environment? We are destroying a divine creation that
does not belong to us. People would not dream throwing oil onto a church
altar, but in effect that’s what we’re doing to the sacred earth,” she
said.
Jude LaClaire cited the Soka
Gakkai Buddhist “Earth Charter” in explaining her concern that “what we
do to the earth we do to ourselves. Like the American Indians, we (Buddhists)
see the interdependence of all things. We want to awaken people to feel
a profound reverence for all forms of life,” she said.
Gulf residents are seeing
both human and economic costs of environmental desecration. If we are addicted
to ignoring nature’s claims on us, perhaps a cleaner spiritual outlook
might wean us from oil, or we might at least be more careful with it.
CRES WEBSITE NOTES:
“Come see where
the industry that puts a drop of oil in your life every day was born” 151
years ago, so opens the website, drakewell.org, for the oil well less than
an hour from where I used to live in western Pennsylvania. What changes
Drake’s discovery hath wrought!
Turner, referring
a recent coal mine disaster, also said, “Maybe the Lord’s tired of having
the tops knocked off (the mountains of West Virginia for) more coal.”
At President
Obama's May 27 press conference, he used the word sacred in saying, "The
spill. And it’s not just me, by the way. When I woke this morning and I’m
shaving and Malia knocks on my bathroom door and she peeks in her head
and she says, “Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?” Because I think everybody
understands that when we are fouling the Earth like this, it has concrete
implications not just for this generation, but for future generations.
"I grew up in Hawaii where the ocean is sacred. And when you see birds
flying around with oil all over their feathers and turtles dying, that
doesn’t just speak to the immediate economic consequences of this; this
speaks to how are we caring for this incredible bounty that we have.
"And so sometimes when I hear folks down in Louisiana expressing frustrations,
I may not always think that they're comments are fair; on the other hand,
I probably think to myself, these are folks who grew up fishing in these
wetlands and seeing this as an integral part of who they are -- and to
see that messed up in this fashion would be infuriating."
The leading cause of death for people aged 1 to 34 years old in the US
is traffic accidents." The car is evil, alas necessary in today's addicted
culture, which sends oil money to those who would harm us, depletes our
national independence, and kills upwards of 35,000 people each year (more
than 10 times killed in the 9/11 attacks) and injures multiples more, 1,300
350,000 teenagers alone out of the 470,000, many with severe trauma).
While public ire is focused against BP, Chevron (which merged with Texaco)
is responsible for what is probably even a worst environmental disaster.
Ecuador’s northern Amazon region where Texaco ran more than 300 wells for
a quarter century. As The New York Times' Bob Herbert wrote June 4, "The
lives and culture of the local inhabitants, who fished in the intricate
waterways and cultivated the land as their ancestors had done for generations,
have been upended in ways that have led to widespread misery.
"Texaco came barreling into this delicate ancient landscape in the early
1960s with all the subtlety and grace of an invading army. And when it
left in 1992, it left behind, according to the lawsuit, widespread toxic
contamination that devastated the livelihoods and traditions of the local
people, and took a severe toll on their physical well-being.
"A brief filed by the plaintiffs said: “It deliberately dumped many billions
of gallons of waste byproduct from oil drilling directly into the rivers
and streams of the rainforest covering an area the size of Rhode Island.
It gouged more than 900 unlined waste pits out of the jungle floor — pits
which to this day leach toxic waste into soils and groundwater. It burned
hundreds of millions of cubic feet of gas and waste oil into the atmosphere,
poisoning the air and creating ‘black rain’ which inundated the area during
tropical thunderstorms.”
"The quest for oil is, by its nature, colossally destructive. And the giant
oil companies, when left to their own devices, will treat even the most
magnificent of nature’s wonders like a sewer."
Please see the CRES summary analysis of
the loss of the sense of the sacred in the environment which befouls our
very being.
READER
RESPONSES
JonHarker
wrote on 6/18/2010 --
Well, Vern, at least this time you can't blame a God you don't believe
in for the disaster.
Human greed caused this, plain and simple.
GabrielMichaeal
wrote on 6/16/2010 --
And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply,
and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the
sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves
upon the earth." Genesis 1:28
821. 100609 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Book shines a light on faith and
diversity
I laughed when I read that a Kansas City
colleague, Josef Walker, was quoted joking that interfaith workers are
“running around with flashlights in the dark.” Walker’s words appear in
Interactive Faith: The Essential Interreligious Community-Building Handbook
edited by Bud Heckman.
Because folks like Walker
and Heckman are multiplying, there is not as much dark as when that phrase
was uttered just three years ago. Walker, a layman, continues to shine
light upon the diversity in our community. Heckman is a director at Religions
for Peace at the United Nations Plaza in New York.
Folks often feel in the dark
about the many faiths around us. Heckman’s book is more a huge searchlight
than a flashlight. His 2008 book answers questions such as:
§ What is interfaith
dialogue and why is it important now more than ever? How can understanding
be pursued through conversation, the arts and by participating in others’
rituals and in interfaith events?
§ How can values shared
by all faiths be put into action though service projects and advocacy?
Part of the book was written by Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth
Core and a member of President Obama’s Faith Advisory Council. A Muslim,
he
was last fall’s featured speaker at Congregation Beth Shalom synagogue
for the Kansas City Festival of Faiths.
§ What are the basic
facts one should know about other religions and what resources are available?
The book contains excellent short descriptions of familiar faiths as well
as less well-known traditions like Zoroastrianism and Jainism.
Heckman notes Kansas City’s
contributions. He was completing his 300-page book the summer of 2007 while
in town for the nation’s first “Interfaith Academies” for religious professionals
and students, housed by the St. Paul School of Theology in cooperation
with Harvard University’s Pluralism Project.
Among local efforts recognized
in the book are the Interfaith Council’s “Interfaith Passport” program
and the play, “The Hindu and the Cowboy and Other Kansas City Stories,”
both cited as models for other cities.
But what I like best about
the book is the explicit challenge to Samuel Huntington’s dark view of
religions in his “Clash of Civilizations,” a much-discussed paper in a
1993 issue of Foreign Affairs.
The book’s response is that
civilizations and religions do not clash. Rather those in every faith who
seek to dominate or exclude others clash with those in every faith who
welcome having their own identities mutually valued and enriched by other
faiths, dispelling the darkness.
READER
RESPONSES
JonHarker
wrote on 6/12/2010 --
You guys are talking this too seriously. I don't think Vern believes much
of anything; he gave a talk to the local atheist group that convinced me
that he thinks all beliefs are just the equivalent of whatever make you
feel good.
He won't engage you in discussion: he like to be above it all and just
sit back and act superior while others argue.
TheistJD
wrote on 6/11/2010 --
Strange that you mention that, Ben, as I recall that a while back Vern
was all over Israel for exhibiting some kind of supposed supremicsm.
Ben_Yahood
wrote on 6/9/2010 --
There you go again, Vern, whitewashing the violent supremacism inherent
in Islam (e.g., infidel, dhimmi, jihad) as in no other major world religion
... Sigh ...
TheistJDwrote
on 6/9/2010 --
Vern, why do you act like your own personal views are some kind of secret?
Like you are superior, or "above it all". I know you say you do that to
"facilitate discussion", but does it also faciliate financial donations?
In other words, are you afraid that if your own views were known, donations
might drop off?
Its a fair question, as ot what the "facilitator" believes, because the
"facilitator" might have biases that would affect his treatment of the
parties. Just keeping his views "secret" does not mean he does not have
biases...in fact, if he were open about his views, the chance of bias would
be LESS.
820. 100602 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
God transcends mere science
The term “God of the gaps” appears on the
very first page of Ian Barbour’s famous 1966 book, “Issues in Science and
Religion.” The term denotes a conception of God who fills in where scientific
explanations are incomplete.
Newton, for example, who
could explain so much about planetary motions, could not account for the
curious precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, so he thought
this showed God’s involvement in the universe.
But this gap in scientific
knowledge was filled when Einstein’s Theory of Relativity resolved the
anomaly and God was no longer needed for this purpose.
Last month’s news gave us
a chance to view the past and test the future of the God-of-the-gaps approach
to faith.
May 22, the remains of Copernicus
were blessed as he was reburied in a cathedral nearly 500 years after he
was condemned as a heretic. His theory that the earth moved around the
sun was thought to mean that humanity no longer was the center of the universe.
It pushed God aside.
May 20, genomic scientist
and entrepreneur J. Craig Venter announced that his team had created “the
first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is
a computer.” The God who created the world and everything in it may seem
now unnecessary, not much more clever than a smart computer.
Other advances have diminished
the God of the gaps.
In the 19th century, fossils
and geologic studies raised questions about the age of the earth. Darwin
showed how natural adaptation led to biological variation and challenged
earlier ideas about God’s role in generating life.
The discovery and control
of germs by Lister and Pasteur removed disease from the work of devils,
and Freud identified natural causes for mental illness, rather than demonic
possession.
Mendel’s work with hereditary
found fruition in the 20th century with the decoding of DNA.
The chemical basis of brain
functioning, social factors affecting personal behavior, evidence of global
economic and environmental interdependence, and even enhanced weather prediction
might seem to reduce the role for God to explain what happens. Did God
send that rain in response to prayer or was it the merely the confluence
of air masses?
Is there anything left for
God?
A God of the gaps does not
seem adequate for the spiritual impulse within us. We don’t really need
God to explain gaps in science. What our hearts desire is a God who works
through all that we now know and all we will learn, as well as what we
will never discover.
Such a God does not hide
in a gap. This God is everywhere when our eyes are open.
READER
COMMENT amd Vern's replies
in reverse order:
gregswartz
wrote on 6/8/2010 --
TheistJD, Over the years, I have heard lots of explanations for the existence
of god. None have made any sense, so I really cannot tell you what might
convince me that there is a god. That is why I am asking you!!!
As for the mathematical order of the universe and its fine tuning, I do
not see that those things are anything more than evidence that for the
universe to exist, it probably does need to be mathematically ordered and
fine tuned. But, how does that prove that there is a god? If the universe
must be mathematically ordered and fine tuned, but it is not, then in all
probability it would simply not exist.
Neither does the rarity of beneficial mutations prove that there is a god.
First of all, there are instances in which there are mutations that do
happen rapidly. Are you saying that god only has time now and then to come
here and handle some mutations? Knowing what we know of living cell structure,
including DNA, it is not surprising that undirected cell mutations might
occur rarely or, in some cases, often. The chemicals within cells operate
in accordance with their chemical properties, so what does god have to
do with it?
There are numerous examples of evolutionary changes that make sense only
if they are undirected. The human body, including the brain, could have
been designed much better. The fact that it looks like it evolved undirected
is some evidence that it, in fact, developed undirected.
TheistJD
wrote on 6/8/2010 --
Swartz, I have offered evidence, but you reject it; some of those include
the mathematical order of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe,
the rarity of "beneficial mutations", and the like.
But there is NO evidence, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, that you would accept, because
you believe that all existence can be explained by mindless undirected
processes.
But you can not demonstrate that existence, life, and mind are the result
of mindless processes.
Nevertheless, you hold that view.
So I repeat my challenge, What evidence would you IN PRINCIPLE (this means
theoretically, even if not practically) accept that God exists.
Mathematical?
Philosophical?
Historical?
A miracle?
I repeat my claim...there is NOTHING you would accept.
For you to keep asserting that "there is no evidence where there should
be evidence" is the cop out. There is evidence, but your PRESUPPOSITIONS
that mindless forces explain everything allows you to deny the evidence,
even though you can not demonstrate that those mindless forces account
for existence, life, and mind.
gregswartz
wrote on 6/8/2010 --
TheistJD your last post is yet another cop out!
What difference does it make if I accept your evidence or not! What is
your evidence for god????
Without some evidence to discuss, we have this endless "Yes, there is!
No, there isn't!" debate that is meaningless. You are the one averring
the existence of a god. You must have some reason for believing that a
god exists! What is it? I am only saying that without evidence for a god,
especially considering that there is no evidence where there should be
evidence, I must conclude that there is none!
And, given the fact that you have offered no evidence, then I strongly
suspect that you realize that your arguments are not sustainable!!!!
TheistJD
wrote on 6/8/2010 --
What evidence would you accept, "Greg" (speaking of pseudonyms we know
how many names your side used at the Tammeus blog!)?
The mathematical order of the universe? Fine tuning? The rarity of "beneficial"
mutations? Etc.
I submit that there is NO EVIDENCE, even in principle, that you would accept
because your rejection of God stems from childhood, not from any reasoned
analysis.
As such, you hold to a belief that everything can untimately be explained
to be the result of undirected/mindless processes.
But you can't demonstrate this, either as to the origin of existence itself,
or of life, or even of "reason".
As such, your undemonstrable belief requires NO EVIDENCE and allows you
to reject anything to the contrary.
My challenge; GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT EVIDENCE YOU WOULD ACCEPT, AT
LEAST IN PRINCICIPLE.
My claim: YOU CAN NOT GIVE ANY SUCH EXAMPLE.
gregswartz
wrote on 6/7/2010 --
Well, as usual when debating with the various religious pseudonyms (and
an occasional real name) that appear on these blogs, the discussion has
devolved into nonsense. My original question, and the same question that
I have been asking for 60 years, was for evidence of god! As usual, that
question has gone unanswered and the discourse has devolved into peripheral,
nonessential and generally unimportant issues. So where is the evidence
for god??????? If there really is an omnipresent god, it ought to be real
easy!!!!!
JonHarker
wrote on 6/7/2010 --
JD, ya got that right! Swartz joined in with his pals Iggy and Cole on
the Tammeus blog on numerous occassions.
Although I am not suprised that he would try to distance himself from their
nonsense at this point. its become apparent to a number of us that their
"meetups" are going nowhere.
TheistJD
wrote on 6/7/2010 3:06:13 PM:
Interesting "clarification", Greg, but I "lack belief in your claims".
It is well known that you commented at the Tammus blog and participated
in ridicule of believers...but I guess you called that "intellectual discussion."
Anyone who wants verification can go to the archives of that blog and check
your posts for some time back.
Further, you maintain the Kansas City Freethought site, and you are frequently
on the local atheist propaganda radio show, so indentifying you with the
groups is QUITE CORRECT.
You protesteth too much!
gregswartz
wrote on 6/7/2010 --
If I get the time to respond to other issues in this thread before comments
are cut off, I will, but I did want to clarify one important thing.
I have been either an agnostic or atheist for at least 50 years and I can
recall skeptical events in my life that go back 60 years. I first became
aware that there was a Kansas City group of skeptics through a Kansas City
Star article written by Vern Barnet back in 1997. I became more active
in the early part of the last decade and was president of the Community
of Reason long before "the self confessed 'Militant Atheist' Iggy" came
on the scene.
I am part of his group only to the extent that I know Iggy and go to some
of the events he sponsors. I try to be supportive of all the free thought
events in the Kansas City area, so to identify me with his groups only
is incorrect. Furthermore, I try to promote free thought through education
and intellectual discussion and probably have a little more boring approach
to it than Iggy. I do not promote arguments based on such things at Pink
Unicorns and Flying Speghetti Monsters, though that might appeal to some
people.
I do not hate religion and I do not hate god(s) or religionists. As for
god(s), I cannot hate something that I believe does not extist. I do see
religion causing so many of the problems that we have in the world today.
Then, when I realize that these differences are based on human imagination
rather than evidence, I do get expremely frustrated.
Blairson
wrote on 6/5/2010 --
Trapblock, Greg is part of a local group of atheists organized by the self
confessed "Militant Atheist" Iggy at KCFreethinkers.
The are not just mad, they hate religion. You may recall that Iggy trashed
the Tammeus blog with offensive comments for months last year and early
this year; he loved to call Christians "delusional" and his sidekick Cole
Morgan loved to call them "Psychotic". He also loved to tell Christians
to "shut up", "keep their beliefs to themselves" and "crawl under a rock".
That crowd is a real piece of work. They even had Vern speak at one of
their meetings a couple of months ago and it is pretty clear what he really
thinks. A friend of mine has met with all of them and says that they have
never said anything to him that didn't include insults.
They don't really want discussion, as at least Vern does, but they do really
want you to SHUT UP. LOL! I ain't gonna, and I enjoy sparring with them.
By the way, anyone who wants verification of this can go to the Tammeus
blog and review the archived comments by these guys.
vbarnet
wrote on 6/5/2010 --
Blairson-- I agree with you that scientific gaps are not closing, and that
such a statement is more a philosophical statement about science than science
itself. Further, every discovery seems to raise more questions, as you
suggest.
What Venter said was that his team had created “the first self-replicating
species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.” I am glad
to clarify what I wrote because he did not say he "created" life, which
is why I quoted his exact words. Again, you are correct in saying that
his work requires intelligent input -- in this case, he cited the computer.
And I would add the intelligence of his team. Drawing theological conclusions
about whether the world is the result of intelligent design seems a separate
issue worth discussion.
Blairson
wrote on 6/5/2010 --
Vern, the idea that the gaps are "closing" is a comfortable one for atheists
such as yourself, but is not a scientific view per se.
In fact, the more we learn, the more we realize that we don't know and
that there is to know...from "other universes" which we can't even in principle
investigate to the elusive "theory of everything".
By the way, Venter did not "create" life and the best he has shown is that
the origin of life requires intelligent input...it certainly did not take
place by a mindless uncontrolled process.
vbarnet
wrote on 6/5/2010 --
I love these thoughtful, direct, and polite discussions. I also notice
that JonHarker wrote on 5/8/2010 that "Vern, a lot of Freethinkes think
you should just come out and admit you are an atheist" while gregswartz
wrote on 6/4/2010 that "Vern Barnet thinks (God) is everywhere . . . ."
What is important to me is not presenting my own view but encouraging such
discussions.
trapblock
wrote on 6/4/2010 --
Greg you must be angry at someone if you don't believe in God, read the
Faith section of the Star and post antagonistic comments after stories.
And I'm fairly certain that most of what you know is based on things you've
read or heard about hopefully from credible sources... you can't expect
anyone to believe that the only things you believe are things you've empirically
tested yourself.
There is plenty of evidence of Jesus and his disciples... for one there's
a church that's been in existance for over 2000 years... that's a pretty
good one.
People don't die for a belief if they know it's a lie. I choose to believe
the disciples of Jesus that died proclaiming his resurrection... they gained
nothing in this life by doing so... to me that gives them credibility.
The Hindus believe that God is everywhere... I do not. I can see His handywork
everywhere though. He is the prime mover there can be no other. What's
impossible for me to believe is that our lives are just random chance...
statistically that is virtually impossible (talk about evidence).
As for the question 'where is God'... I guess I will have to quote the
Red Hot Chili Peppers, "If you have to ask... you'll never know".
Rest assured though... someday we will both die and I suppose we will have
an answer then.
gregswartz
wrote on 6/4/2010 --
Trapblock, you state that the Bible contains "divine logic not human logic"
yet you presume to know what the Bible says. I am always amazed at those
who claim that we cannot know the mind of god, but then proceed to tell
me what they think god did, wants, expects. etc.
As far as Peter Kreeft is concerned, perhaps a source citation might be
helpful as I am not aware of the allegation!
As for the Bible as an historical document, it fails miserably. There is
no evidence for much of what is in the Bible outside of the Bible, and
the stories of the deaths of "Jesus' friends" are far from based upon good
evidence. Besides, people do die for their beliefs, even if they are based
up on "myth or a lie".
Rest assured that I am not angry at god. One cannot be angry at something
that does not exist. We are back to the unanswered (and skirted) question
of "Where is god?" Vern Barnet thinks he is everywhere, but I have read
his writings and heard him speak. He has no logical answer and neither
do you!
trapblock
wrote on 6/4/2010 --
I actually heard Peter Kreeft (philosopher) quoting a study that a large
majority of neurologists believe in God BECAUSE of what they know.
The Bible contains divine logic not human logic... it's supposed to make
you question. If not then God would be just a tyrant and we would be a
bunch of robots. He gave us free will and we are free to reject Him or
stay angry at Him because we don't completely understand Him.
Might I suggest that if the Bible and Jesus are just a bunch of "myths,
philosophies and period fears and never really happened", how would you
account for the fact that eleven of Jesus' friends all went to their death
for proclaiming they saw Jesus after he was put to death? No one dies for
a myth or a lie. These guys certainly didn't do it for money or power for
they had neither. They weren't particularly bright either.
Bartholomew was skinned alive. Do you think if he was lying or had a shred
of doubt he might have recanted after the first skin peel?
The early church was persecuted by the greatest power on Earth, followers
punished by death and yet the church grew and flourished. The only thing
mystical here is why did they keep going?
Perhaps actual history is a good place for you to begin your pursuit of
Truth...
gregswartz
wrote on 6/4/2010 --
Trapblock, the Christian story is really weird. According to the Bible,
god wanted a blood sacrifice, so he sent his only begotten son and he was
crucified. Then because we did, we have to suffer. Strange logic! I think
we should have moved beyond this unscientific logic and discarded it long
ago. Actually, I sincerely believe that the whole Jesus story is a conflation
of a bunch of myths, philosophies and period fears and never really happened
the way the Bible portrays it. For one thing, I find no evidence for the
divine and in order to believe in a divine Jesus, you have to believe in
the divine.
As far as searching, I used to pray in church 50 years ago. At some point
I came to realize that there was nothing on the other side of the the (nonexistent)
dialogue. I think I was humble enough back then, but there was no god to
answer. I still keep asking religionists for proof of god, but still get
no satisfactory answer - either falacious logic or mystical feelings easily
understood if we understand how the brain works. See my first post here!
trapblock
wrote on 6/4/2010 --
When we killed His Son we kinda gave up the right to complain about suffering
in this world. I guess though if you don't believe in Heaven this world
is all you have.
Greg, don't give up the search for Truth... He can save you but you have
to be humble enough to ask.
gregswartz
wrote on 6/3/2010 --
Prayer is a waste of time! But, but go ahead and pray, but rather than
pray for me, I would prefer that you pray for all the starving children
in the world, the millions caught up in war and all those more in need
than I. Obviously, no one is praying for them or god really does not care,
because all of these unfortunate persons have been with us for all recorded
history. Where is this "kind and just" god when the unfortunate need them?
One should not have to fear one who loves them!!!! God is a delusion!!!!
Revextremely
wrote on 6/3/2010 --
gregswartz, I will pray to "the God Who is, Who was, and Who is to come..."
will reveal Himself to you. You cannot find Him, but He can find you. He
loves you and all of mankind and gave Himself as a sacrifice to save you
from eternal torment. He is kind and just. He is loving and to be feared
because of greatness.
gregswartz
wrote on 6/3/2010 --
There is a major problem with Vern Barnet's article and the previous comment.
Both seem quite confident that there is a god out there. But where is this
god? I have never seen her, it or him. Reality is that god lives in the
imagination of the brain - mainly in the paleomammalian brain. Using the
newer and more advanced portion of the brain - the neomammalian brain -
we can analyze whether the paleomammalian brain is giving us accurate information.
Using the neomammalian brain we see that god is just a delusion!
GabrielMichaeal
wrote on 6/2/2010 --
The sciences emerged and flourished preciesly in the context of the great
Christian universities of the West.
Copernicus was a Priest...
Mendel was a Monk... The Big Bang Theory came from a priest.
All Truth comes from God... there can be no conflict.
Michael
Lemons wrote:
As any particle physicist might tell you, every answer creates new questions.
Not to be simplistic, but an ever growing mass of answers reveals more
and more space for questions, and if God really is in the Gaps, those gaps
grow in complexity and prevalence in the minds of those who consider the
new questions.
Science.. the pursuit of answers.. has long been vilified by bodies of
faith who feared to lose power and influence if the tenants of faith were
questioned, or worse, proven outright wrong. Yet faith survives the
onslaught of science... not only survives, but many forms of faith flourish
in the continued revelation of the nature and function of the universe
around us. The insurmountable chasm between science and faith now
seems narrower, less impossible than the dark and frightening recesses
of human history, and some day, some distant day, maybe next week, the
same breed of primate that used to kill each other over science versus
faith, will pursue faith in the vehicle of science.
Maybe that goal, to realize that leap to purposeful investigative faith,
is why we are here.
---
It's always a pleasure to read what you have to say, but I especially enjoyed
reading something touching so close to my personal view on God and Faith.
For a very long time now I have always thought of faith as something we
use to fill the holes in knowledge.. I just never really dipped into the
ever expanding scale of possibilities as we explore and illuminate the
facts previously vieled in faith.. Kinda gives me hope for the future..
It kind of reminds me about an article I recently read about Einstien's
brain, how one man pretty much stole the brain of the father of modern
physics after the autopsy in the name of determining what in Einstien's
brain made him such a genius. In short, it wasn't the cells the research
expected that made him brilliant, it was cells previously thought to be
simply "brain glue" holding the structure together and filling gaps.
After finding more of this kind of brain structure in Einstien's brain,
further investigation showed that these cells were transmitting chemical
signals all over the brain as a person thinks and learns, engaging areas
not normally associated with the process being performed. It was
like finding a whole "another brain" within the structure we once thought
totally un-involved in brain function. I'm sure I'm grossly undersimplifying,
you can catch the article here..
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1873569/
einstein_helps_scientific_discovery_after_his_death/index.html?source=r_science
So I guess the devil may be in the details, but between the details is
where we find faith. , , ,
819. 100526 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Memorials should respect all
I wandered around Union Cemetery one sunny
afternoon last week. While almost everywhere among the 55,000 graves I
found interest and inspiration, it was almost half an hour before I came
upon a cross.
I was a little surprised
since religious symbols like the cross have occasioned passionate legal
contests in our time. Just last month the U.S. Supreme Court decided Salazar
v. Buono, a complicated case arising from a single Latin cross dominating
the Mojave National Preserve.
The prominent cross there
was originally intended to honor veterans who died in World War I, but
was opposed by those who said that it made the federal government appear
to favor one faith over others.
Union Cemetery offers a better
message. It was created in 1857 in a pact between what were then the separate
towns of Westport and Kansas City, uniting the two to provide a place for
their dead, some reburied from separate gravesites filled from the cholera
epidemic of 1849.
Today its 27 acres a few
blocks south of Crown Center contain markers for citizens great and small,
and for soldiers from the Revolutionary War to the Vietnam War. No single
symbol stands for everyone.
The graveyard accord between
Westport and Kansas City brought together both Union and Confederate soldiers
from the Civil War, waged, as Lincoln observed, with both sides invoking
God’s aid against the other. Here they lie in peace.
Alas, God is still being
invoked in legal battles elsewhere.
The strife arises on public
land when only one symbol is selected above all others as an emblem for
everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
Some argue that the cross
is a simply a secular image of death. But don’t many Christians claim the
cross as a sign not only of death but also as a promise of resurrection
in Christ? I just don’t know any Jews or Sikhs who’ve specified a cross
for their tombstones.
The U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs offers dozens of religious symbols for individual headstones, including
the Buddhist wheel, the Hindu om, the Muslim crescent and star, and several
versions of the Christian cross.
Memorial Day should be a
time when we honor those of all faiths who have given their lives for our
liberties, especially the freedom to practice whatever faith is meaningful
to each of us, or none. Scholars often cite America as the most religious
nation of the industrialized West, by far, precisely because we welcome
every spiritual tradition.
As those of diverse faiths
mingle in graveyards, let us embrace one another in life. And may our patriots
rest in peace.
818. 100519 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Everything is connected to God
Cantor Paul Silbersher, now 80, has thought
a lot about interfaith relations during the course of his long career.
“I’ve not been comfortable
just patting someone on the back as an act of tolerance. Instead, when
one moves beyond tolerating to respect the things sacred to others, their
organizing principles, their stories, then the conversation can commence,”
says Silbersher, the spiritual leader of Congregation Kol Ami, a Reform
synagogue in Prairie Village.
Silbersher also says that
Judaism has “benefited from an interplay with other faiths.”
Next week his congregation
will host a prominent 38-year-old Jewish scholar and activist, Jay Michaelson,
whose prolific writings illustrate how one can understand one’s own tradition
more deeply by respecting and learning about others.
His latest book is “Everything
is God: The Radical Path of Nondual Judaism.”
Michaelson has founded a
software company, taught law, played in a rock band and spent five months
on a silent Buddhist retreat, mostly in Nepal.
His writing on the subject
of sexuality and religion has been featured on NPR, in the New York Times,
Duke Law Review and other media. He says, “Religion is not about belief
but (about) love, and the obligations which spring from it.”
Some forms of Christianity
have understood carnal and spiritual love as two separate things. So I
asked Michaelson about a “non-dual” approach to sexuality.
“The Jewish tradition has always,
always, sanctified sexuality . . . within certain boundaries,” he said.
It is “a way to serve God.”
He cited Jewish mystical
texts that “speak of the ‘holy unification’ between masculine and feminine
here on earth which, by the way, need not (only) be between male and female,
as reflecting and embodying unifications within God. . . .
“The gift of my Buddhist
practice is that it enables mindfulness in all moments, including sexually
intimate ones. Here, the two (religious) paths converge. By being more
present in sexual intimacy, I find I’m able to be more aware of the holiness
of the moment and of the person I’m with,” he said.
Kabbalah is a Jewish
tradition that teaches everything is God or, as Michaelson puts it, “One,”
while Buddhism says everything is “Zero.” His practice in both traditions
deepens respect for different mathematical metaphors for the same sacred
insight.
Silbersher says he is “eagerly
awaiting” Michaelson’s visit here May 26 when he gives a free lecture at
7 pm. On May 27 he offers a meditation workshop at 7; the charge is $20.
For information, visit kolamikc.com
or call 913-642-9000.
CRES WEBSITE NOTES
The Star version
is slightly shorter than the text above.
Click
here for the link to Michaelson's website.
The text of
the email interview with Michaelson:
1. How does one accept the teaching that everything is God -- including
oneself -- without falling into narcissism?
Narcissism is the polar opposite of nondual spirituality. As I understand
it, narcissism is about aggrandizing the self. But if everything
is God, there is no separate self. Whatever your story is, however you
feel, whatever prizes you win or love you do or don't have -- all of these
are beautiful, or terrible, or both, but most importantly none of these
are you or yours. Each of us is like a wave on the ocean: the size
and shape is nice, but really, at our essence, we're water.
Also -- if everything is God, then, sure, I'm God, but so are you and everyone
else. That kind of levels things out, don't you think?
2. If religion is about love, what duties arise from it?
Following in the footsteps of many philosophers, I think love is the root
of why we conceive duties and obligations. Yes, reason points the
way; it tells me that stealing from you would cause you suffering, and
hurt society, and so on. But love convinces me that that matters.
Love, itself, doesn't dictate the contours of duty; it may well be more
"loving" to let someone fail than to spoil them with success, and certainly,
many people have used "love" as the justification for all sorts of horrible
behavior. But it does dictate the imperative to care in the first
place.
Another way of putting it is that the ethical side of religion is love
explicated in human relations; if we truly love one another, how should
we behave? The ritual side of religion is love explicated in the
realm of the spirit; how can we feel more love for all that is, and widen
our perpectives beyond I, me, and mine?
3. Still influential 1600 years later, St Augustine devalued pleasurable
sexuality because the orgasm is not under rational control but rather a
bodily function. What do Jewish (and/or Asian) traditions teach about understanding
sexual energy as a spiritual path?
The Jewish tradition has always, always, sanctified sexuality. In traditional
Judaism, this takes place within certain boundaries: marriage (usually,
but not always), respect for the other person, and so on. But there
has never been a sense in the mainstream Jewish tradition that sexuality
is evil, or a necessary evil, or anything other than a way to serve God.
How we translate those norms today is an open question, of course, and
I am more liberal than many on that question, but the basic norm is clear.
The Jewish tradition does not have a "kama sutra" or other way to enhance
sexual pleasure as a spiritual practice. Many texts of the Kabbalah
speak of the "holy unification" between masculine and feminine here on
Earth (which, by the way, need not be between male and female) as reflecting
and embodying unifications within God. Even today, many Hasidic men
consider sex with their wives to be sex with the feminine aspect of God.The
emphasis in the Jewish side is on intention, not technique.
The form of Buddhism I practice (in addition to Judaism) is not as affirming
regarding sexual energy, but, as understood in the West, its primary teaching
is to avoid sexual misconduct, however that is defined. I define
it as anything which causes harm or degrades the individuals involved.
But the gift of my Buddhist practice is that it enables mindfulness in
all moments, including sexually intimate ones. Here, the two paths
converge. By being more present in sexual intimacy, I find I'm able
to be more aware of the holiness of the moment and of the person I'm with.
And for sure, I appreciate being able to shut off the mind now and then!
817. 100512 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
The legacy of Marc Wilson at the
Nelson
To complete their “standard model” of what
makes up the universe, scientists are searching for a sub-atomic particle
that gives mass to others, the Higgs boson, popularized as “the God particle.”
If it exists, and if Marc Wilson had pursued his youthful interest in physics,
I reckon he would have found it.
Instead, perhaps more importantly,
he has renewed and enlarged the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art and given us
free access to the deepest expressions of the human spirit — and a lot
of fun.
Take the “Shuttlecocks.”
I like the idea that we see a freeze-frame of invisible gods or giants
playing badminton over the 1933 building, even as mortals play frisbee
in real time on the south lawn within the sculpture garden.
Inside the museum, you’ll
find gods and heroes from, say, the ancient Egyptian, Osiris, to the American,
Martin Luther King Jr, portrayed in ways that model how various cultures
have understood what our lives depend on.
The small gilt bronze “Seated
Manjusri Budhisattva” (2000.23 in “The Glory of the Law” gallery), which
Wilson acquired along with 15,000 other works during his 39-year tenure,
requires no knowledge of Buddhism to find its grace both intimate and cosmic.
Even art with no apparent religious
content may move us with an answer to the spiritual question, “What does
it mean to be human?”
Whenever I bring out-of-town
guests to the museum, they are astonished by both the encyclopedic scope
of our permanent collections and their eminence.
I’ve been visiting the museum
for 35 years and I still have this same reaction, now intensified with
the newly installed European, American, American Indian and Egyptian galleries
— not to mention the wonders of, and in, the Bloch Building.
I cherish the 1980 “Eight
Dynasties of Chinese Painting” exhibition catalog because I got both Wilson
and his predecessor, Laurence Sickman, who began our world-famous Chinese
collection, to autograph my copy.
When my organization, CRES,
asked Wilson to accept an award in 2005 “for advancing a treasury of art
through which the world’s great religions may be explored,” he asked that
Sickman also be honored, posthumously. Wilson was feted earlier this month
at the museum, and he named Sickman and others as part of the museum story.
Still, as he retires as director
June 1, it is hard not to think chiefly of Wilson as one of those gods
or giants over the museum.
Friday at 7:30 p.m., Wilson
speaks on “To Believe or Not to Believe: My Struggle with the Truth of
Fortune Cookies.” Call 816.751.1278 for free tickets.
CRES WEBSITE NOTES:
In 2008 the
Nelson acquired Simon Norfolk's 2007 chromogenic print, "Large Hadron Collider
No 6, CERN Labs, Switzerland," where physicists will search for the Higgs
boson in the 17-mile circular tunnel. The photograph reminds me of Tibetan
mandalas, American Indian medicine wheels, and cathedral rose windows.
When I was
negotiating with Religious for Peace-USA, working in concert with Harvard
University's Pluralism Project, to bring the nation's first "Interfaith
Academies" for students and religious professionals to Kansas City in 2007,
one of my selling points was the Museum. For the Academies' fortnight,
WIlson personally arranged three tours for the American and foreign participants.
My first indirect
experience with Wilson was (in the pre-digital age) when I was serving
as pastor of an Overland Park church and I wanted to borrow slides of certain
works from the permanent to illustrate a sermon. At that time the Museum
had a strict policy against lending out materials. I appealed and WIlson
reversed the policy. In 2007, the Festival of Faiths asked me to prepare
a "virtual tour" of the Museum for its November
observances, and the Museum provided considerable assistance. So when the
Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council wanted to interview me for a video
to be shown at its annual "Table of Faiths" luncheon, what better site
for the filming than the south lawn of the Museum Wilson had reshaped through
his managerial, development (fundraising), staff-building, and visionary
leadership?
WIlson also
promoted an understanding that art is free -- literally, by ending fees
for seeing the permanent collection; free in the sense that one can come
and go through the many doors of the buildings without impediment to see
the art inside and out; free in the sense that no interpretation of any
work of art is required but one's own response is respected; free in the
sense that one does not have to dress up to enjoy the Museum; free to see
one work and leave -- or spend the entire day.
Here is how
Wilson begins the Foreword to the 1988 volume, The Collections of The Nelson-Atkins
Museum of Art: “Man has always invested meaning in symbols and images .
. . to define his relationship with the cosmos. . . . It is not surprising,
therefore, that religions generally have spawned much of mankind’s artistic
production.”
Readers can
find numerous celebrations of Wilson's tenure in The Star and other publications.
816. 100505 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
The religious right origins
Today’s religions may be rooted in a venerable
past, but they often appear quite different from their beginnings.
For example, Tibetan Buddhism
today is rich with art, ritual and theology, quite unlike the Buddha’s
simple and spare practice.
But let’s focus on American
Christianity. A humble Jewish teacher, Jesus, told the rich man to give
all he had to the poor and proclaimed the advent of the kingdom of God.
Two thousand years later,
hundreds of denominations elaborate his name. Christians are sometimes
sharply divided by politics, and a “Religious Right” has emerged. How did
this happen?
Here’s a skimpy answer.
In the first century, Christianity
entered Hellenistic culture, with Greek ideas about Jesus replacing Hebrew
ways of thinking. The word “Christ” itself is Greek. The New Testament
was written in Greek.
In the fourth century, Christianity
became the religion of the expiring Roman Empire. Fierce creedal disputes
moved toward resolution.
By the fifth century, various
texts had been assembled into what became the modern Bible.
In the Middle Ages, many
different theological perspectives flourished.
In 1517, doctrine became
the tool by which practice was critiqued. Luther’s theology of grace undercut
the selling of indulgences. Arguing what ancient texts meant had political
effects and multiplied denominations.
In the 1600s, science began
to approach truth as empirically testable. But not until about a hundred
years ago was scientific precision systematically claimed for the Bible
in a movement called Fundamentalism, largely abandoning a traditional approach
to the Greek creeds as mysteries. The Bible was not only inspired but also
inerrant.
At first Fundamentalism was
intensely personal, with little worldly or political entanglement. But
later, theologians such as Francis A. Schaeffer (1912–1984) saw a political
agenda in their faith.
Schaeffer influenced Charles
Colson (Watergate), Tim LaHaye (“Left Behind”), Randall Terry (Operation
Rescue) and Jerry Falwell (Moral Majority). Falwell worked to get people
saved, baptized and registered to vote.
While the Religious Right
first sought to protect racial discrimination at Bob Jones University,
Schaeffer’s spotlight on abortion galvanized the movement.
His son, Frank Schaeffer,
has written a book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped
Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It
Back.
This history will be updated
when he speaks Thursday at 7:30 p.m. at Unity Temple on the Plaza, 707
W. 47th St.
CRES WEB SITE NOTES:
Here is the
Wikipedia entry for Francis Schaeffer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schaeffer.
Here is the
Wikipedia entry for Frank Schaeffer:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Schaeffer.
Here is the
Frank Schaeffer wbsite: http://www.frankschaeffer.com.
It contains text and video.
Pursuing our
own spiritual paths, we often forget how the paths we claim both
began from, and now differ from, the founders or first exponents we honor.
Additional
examples: The horse sacrifice of the Vedas is eschewed by modern Hindus.
Jews do not follow the ancient command to stone a rebellious son to death
(Deut 21:18). An economy based on the profit motive is justified by culture
often characterized as Christian as if the collective ownership of the
early Christians (Acts 2:44, 4:32) never happened.
SELECTED
READER COMMENTand
VERN'S
RESPONSE
1.
. . . You said a lot in a few words.The main question I had was whether
it is sufficient to say "science began to approach truth as empirically
testable." Science certainly began to approach factual truth as empirically
testable, and there was an effort to gain factual information about as
much as possible. But I don't know how much that was claimed as truth.
And the statement "all truth can be empirically testable" cannot be empirically
tested; thus, on the basis of the premise that truth can be empirically
testable, that statement is not true. Keep up the good work!
It
is an interesting question you raise, whether the "Enlightenment Project"
assumed that, with continuing refinements, all truth would be decided by
empirical means. Even math was often regarded not as a branch of logic
(as Russell and Whitehead and others in the 19th Century had thought) but
as derived from, or inseparable from, physical reality We know better now,
and so did Wm Blake, but I don't think folks were as clear about that when
the scientific revolution began. I'm not enough of a cultural historian
to be able to answer your question, but I do recognize it as an important
one. Thanks for raising it!
2.
Fantastic. That was a bell ringer of accurate, concise history of the religious
right this morning. You did us all a great service. Your former fundamentalist
friend who used to read Schaeffer as a youth . . . .
3.
JonHarker wrote on 5/8/2010 6:00:25 AM:
Vern, a lot of Freethinkes think you should just come out and admit you
are an atheist.
All
this wishy washy talk is fooling most of us anymore.
I enjoyed your talk at the Skeptics meeting a while back, but it is clear
to me that you have been an atheist since you read Russell's anti Christian
book; which is odd because that particular essay was superficial and so
loaded with bias as to not even be worth being counted as "philosophy".
So, I figure you have other reasons, so why not just come out with it.
(By the way, your "skimpy" answer about the development of Christianity
was not just "skimpy", it was so simplistic as to be misleading and you
know it.)
Or at least I hope you know it, or you are even less informed than I thought.
4.
GabrielMichaeal wrote on 5/7/2010 11:55:21 AM:
"Those
who believe that religion and politics aren't connected don't understand
either." - Mahatma Gandhi
815. 100428 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Celebrate belonging to this earth
Although I’m trained in theology, increasingly
I see people’s experience with religion in psychological and social terms.
And history and geography also play roles so obvious we usually ignore
them.
If you were born in India,
you’d probably be Hindu or perhaps Muslim. You’d more likely be a Christian
than a Buddhist, with practically no chance of being Jewish.
If you lived near Kaw Point
(where the Kansas River flows into the Missouri, in the West Bottoms),
say, before 1804 when Lewis and Clark camped there, your songs would more
likely be Siouan chants than Christian hymns in English.
However proud and even certain
we may be of our faiths, recalling the chance particulars of our births
should arouse some modesty along with our pride.
Although Islam has generally
protected religious minorities, in Christendom, even through the 1555 Peace
of Augsburg, it was pretty much cuius regio, eius religio, “whose realm,
his religion.” The ruler decided whether you’d be Catholic or Protestant.
While some American colonies
required church membership to vote (you also had to be white and male),
today the government cannot dictate religion. Still, you are more likely
to be Catholic in Baltimore and Mormon in Salt Lake City than the reverse.
You are more likely to be Jewish in New York City and Buddhist in Honolulu
than the reverse.
A few years ago I had a student
research why folks belonged to his church. Answers included family tradition,
affection for the stained-glass windows, a good Sunday school, the preacher’s
sermons, neighborhood location and other factors. But not one person chose
the church because of creed.
What this means to me is
that religion is more about belonging than belief.
Yet for many people nowadays
religion — they prefer the term “spirituality” instead — is utterly individual,
the opposite of anything organized or institutional.
So the need to belong is
fulfilled by groups and shared activities, from the religion of baseball
to the curious and paradoxical phenomenon of getting a tattoo, a symbol
of one’s individual spirit, while joining the confederacy of others who
also have tattoos.
Belonging to a group separates
you from those not in the group.
None of this is rocket science,
but the view of earth from space suggests to me that our most urgent sense
of belonging reaches beyond political party and specific faith and even
favorite sports team, to celebrate belonging to the human race, to the
planet itself and to a spiritual adventure, the boundaries of which we
cannot see.
814. 100421 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
‘Don Giovanni’ teaches lessons in
life
How many women has Charlie Harper bedded
on TV’s “Two and a Half Men”? Compare his count with Mozart’s Don Giovanni’s.
The rake’s servant’s meticulous country-by-country catalog famously details
1003 in Spain alone.
Don Giovanni is more ethically
disturbing than any episode of the TV comedy show. Peter Sellars' dark
production of the opera appeared on PBS in 1991. He said that no work before
its 1787 premiere opened with music more violent. The overture’s D minor
and A major chords with timpani are shattering. The eerily iterated rising
and falling notes suggest supernatural powers at work.
And yet, within two minutes,
we hear sunshine music, almost jauntily triumphant.
The story begins with what
appears to be a rape and a murder.
The story ends with Don Giovanni,
refusing multiple opportunities to repent, pulled before our eyes into
hell-fire by a statue of the murdered father of one of the Don’s marks.
Did the presumably monogamous
Mozart and his scandalous librettist Lorenzo Da Ponte conceive of their
work as a comic opera with a serious ending or as tragic theater with interjected
fun? Your answer may depend on the production you see.
Unlike the collaborators’
earlier masterpiece, The Marriage of Figaro, where I grow fond of every
character including the nasty Count, in Don Giovanni the characters are,
one by one, morally disgusting.
Yet the Don knows exactly
what he wants. Some opera lovers, like Soren Kierkegaard, often called
the first Existentialist, argue he is liberated, even noble, because he
knows himself. On the other hand, Giovanni can be seen as pathetic, fearing
that erotic commitment would lead to boredom rather than fulfillment.
The other characters are
compromised by self-deception and delusion.
Kierkegaard’s 2-volume work
Either/Or, published in 1843, seems obsessed with the opera. He says “the
Commendatore’s earnestness, Elvira’s wrath, Anna’s hate, Ottavio’s pomposity,
Zerlina’s anxiety, Mazetto’s indignation” all emanate from Giovanni.
The thrill of seeing these
many perspectives, sometimes simultaneously, comes in the magic of Mozart’s
music.
Compared with Mozart’s opera,
“Two and a Half Men” is just for laughs. Stephen Sondheim’s demonic comedy
Sweeney Todd is mere scribble and screech.
Mozart transforms the agonies
of desire and personal frailties into a cosmic and compassionate humor
that makes the human condition sublime.
The Lyric Opera of Kansas
City presents Don Giovanni April 24, 28, 30 and May 2.
CRES WEB SITE NOTES:
See a 2004
column about the opera at star2004.htm#503
The Kierkegaard
quotation is found on page 119 of Part I (volume 1 of the Hong English
translation (Princeton University Press, 1987). This quotation is part
of the writing of "A," a character created by Kierkegaard, as a counterpoint
to "B," whose writing appears in Part II of Either/Or.
Kierkegaard
was a Christian.
READER COMMENTS:
Your column
in today's K.C. Star is the most remarkable assemblage of 350 words about
anything ever to appear in any publication, anywhere. —Mike Greene
Congratulations
on a very well-written, intuitive piece in Wednesday's Star. I personally
am gving the performance pretalks for the upcoming "Don Giovanni" Lyric
Opera run. As I read yuor piece I thought, "Good Lord, he's givin my .
. . speech!" I may quote you a couple of times and will give full creadit!
Great job!! Keep up the good writing! —Dr Eugene Butler
813. 100414 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Sikhs invite all to their celebration
You’re smart — you know that the two largest
faiths on the planet are Christianity and Islam.
And you, you’re very smart
because you know that Hinduism and Buddhism are the third and fourth largest
faiths. You may have even seen the recent PBS program, “Buddha,” which
repeats on KCPT-2 Apr. 26 at 7 p.m.
But are you well enough informed
to know that the fifth largest religion in the world is the Sikh faith,
in the U.S. for over a hundred years and now well-represented in the Heartland?
Sikhism arose some 500 years
ago in the Punjab region of the Indian subcontinent as Hinduism and Islam
encountered each other. The first guru, Nanak (1469-1539), proclaimed that
God transcends human religions. This led to Sikhs rejecting creed, caste
and gender discrimination.
Several Sikh families came
to the Kansas City area in the 1960s. By 1989 the Midwest Sikh Association
completed a regional gurdwara (Sikh place of worship) in Shawnee at 6834
Pflumm Rd.
In Kansas City’s Hyde Park
area, the Sat Tirath Ashram had its beginnings in 1973 with American-born
followers of Yogi Bhajan, who formed the 3HO (Healthy, Happy, Holy Organization).
Bhajan was a master of kundalini yoga, and the ashram continues to offers
training in that practice.
Both the Kansas City and
the Shawnee groups have been noted by Harvard University’s Pluralism Project.
The capacious Shawnee gurdwara
has a large room containing the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh scripture,
under a canopy. For me, this recalls the succession of ten human gurus,
or teachers, which was replaced by the sacred text from which the teachings
and the songs of praise continue. While most of the materials in the scripture
are Sikh, it also contains Hindu and Muslim writings.
An important feature of the
gurdwara is the langar, the kitchen and dining area. To offer hospitality
to all faiths, only vegetarian fare is prepared. And it is delicious!
This Sunday concludes the
311th festival of Vaisakhi, an annual celebration of commitment to the
faith. Charanjit Hundal and other members of the gurdwara have extended
an invitation to “other faith communities to come and enjoy this occasion
with us.” The gathering begins at 10 a.m., with prayers at 11 a.m. and
langar at noon.
If you accept the invitation,
your hair should be covered (the gurdwara provides scarves) and you’ll
want to remove your shoes on entering the building.
You may not understand the
prayer language, but you’ll be blessed by the experience and the friends
you will make. And did I say the food was great?
812. 100407 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Know your Bible, know yourself
Even after 40 years in the ministry, I’m
still surprised that so many folks claiming allegiance to a particular
holy book don’t know what’s in it. This, alas, is true of many Christians.
So I was intrigued when I
learned that Southwood United Church of Christ’s sign by Raytown Road reads,
“The Living God does not endorse ALL the Bible says.”
The pastor, Michael Stephens,
wrote about the sign in his church newsletter. Stephens says that the Bible
was written thousands of years ago by men (he emphasizes the gender) who
could not possibly have known about many of today’s concerns such as “stem
cell research, weapons of mass destruction, democracy, the origins of the
universe, handguns, Facebook” and such.
He also says that through
the Spirit of the Living God we now understand that practices accepted
in the Bible such as polygamy and slavery are evil, and that practices
condemned, such as homosexual relationships and women speaking in church,
can actually be Spirit-led. He says that the Word of God is not the Bible
but the Living Christ.
With pride he quotes one
of the church’s teenagers, Greg Sheets, who said, “I believe that the Word
of the God that is still speaking cannot be found in a book written long
ago. Instead, it can be found in the hearts and souls of us all.”
I asked for a contrasting
view from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The dean of the college
there, Thorvald B. Madsen, responded:
“This pastor’s comments suggest
that God, even with the resources of omnipotence, didn’t manage to get
an inerrant Bible out of his apostles and prophets. The latter made mistakes,
and God couldn’t do anything about it. Jesus, on the other hand, remains
the ‘Living Christ,’ in this pastor’s view, just as he has been for orthodox
Christians down through the ages.
“But one can’t really have
it both ways, allowing for an Incarnate Word while denying the inerrant,
Inscripturated Word. The power which makes the one possible also allows
for the other. So the pastor has adopted an implausible view, just on its
face.
“The same Bible which tells
us about Spirit-leading also forbids homosexuality, expressly and unambiguously.
. . . Therefore, one cannot pick and choose, embracing what the Bible says
about the Holy Spirit while rejecting its consistent prohibition of sexual
intercourse outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage,” Madsen said.
Your approach to faith and
knowing what’s actually in the Bible may affect how you view many questions
with which our society struggles today.
To read the complete comments
by Stephens and Madsen, visit cres.org/bible.
NOTES AND COMMENTS
from Pastor Michael Stephen's
newsletter:
“The Living
God does not endorse ALL the Bible says.” You have probably seen or heard
that this is the message on our church sign out by Raytown Road right now.
If you’ve heard me speak much, you probably realize that this is a core
belief in my Chris-tian faith. This short article does not provide enough
space to explain this from all an-gles, but let’s explore this phrase.
One e-mail I received about the sign from someone who does not attend Southwood
suggests these words are “blasphemous to the Lord” and “attacking Him”
and more like “something that Satan would say.” Apparently, based on e-mails
and phone calls, our sign is attracting attention and striking a chord/nerve.
Interestingly, I find it more blas-phemous to the Living God to claim his
message can be perfectly contained in the words and views of men (yes,
just men) who wrote from their perspective and experi-ence 2000 plus years
ago.
We believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Christ or God’s anointed. This means
people experience him as being filled with the Spirit of God in a unique
way. Jesus’ biggest op-ponents were people who could not believe that the
Spirit would lead him do things that went against scriptural law. In fact,
they claimed that Satan must be behind Jesus’ work, so I don’t feel like
I’m in such bad company.
My interest in the life and ministry of Jesus is not simply about a spirit-filled
man who lived during first century Israel. What makes Christianity significant
is that Jesus offered that same Spirit to fill and lead us. Jesus did not
write a book or endorse a book. While many mistakenly point to the Bible
as God’s Word, the Gospel of John proclaims that only Jesus is the true
Word of God.
Those of us who seek to be filled with and led by the Spirit of the Living
God are much like the earliest Christians. Peter told the early church
to include Gentiles, not be-cause he read it in scripture, but because
he was led by the Spirit. Trust me - that was not a popular decision with
Jews or Christians. Today, we proclaim that slavery is wrong despite what
the Bible implies because of the movement of the Spirit. Today, we listen
to women preach and teach despite biblical precedent because SheWhoIs speaks
thru them. Today, we encourage committed monogamous relationships despite
the Bible’s acceptance of polygamy because we see the Spirit best expressed
and magnified through the loving relationship of two persons. And today,
Southwood stands proudly with our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters,
not because of biblical endorsement, but because the Spirit of God resides
in them despite society’s injustices and it would be a sin to turn our
back on God’s Spirit.
Biblical scholars would caution our use of the phrase “the Bible says”
and remind us that the Bible is actually a compilation of many voices spanning
many different centuries and cultures. Those voices experienced the Living
God and expressed that experience as best as they could in words and stories.
And, like us, sometimes those voices don’t even agree with each other.
But that’s the beauty of the faith journey!
One lady called to insist that we can’t just pick and choose what scriptures
to be-lieve. My response was that we do so as we are led by the Spirit
and that her church probably doesn’t follow all of the rules in the Bible
either. I could make a long list of bib-lical ideas and laws from both
the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament that we no longer follow. The
Spirit of the Living God clearly no longer endorses such things for today
that would be illegal, immoral, unjust or plain silly.
We struggle with issues today that the people of the Bible could never
have antici-pated: stem cell research, weapons of mass destruction, democracy,
the origins of the universe, handguns, Facebook… but where the Bible is
silent, the U.C.C. believes that “God is still speaking.” The answers to
questions that life throws at us cannot be found solely in ancient scriptures
but in dialogue and study within the spirit-filled community. By living,
working and worshipping together, we hold one another accountable to the
Spirit that binds us and calls us into the future.
So does God endorse some of what the Bible says? Of course! If it were
not for the Bible I’m not sure if I would have developed a passion for
justice, a concern for the poor, a critique of wealth and power, an offering
that exceeds 10%, an affirmation that everyone is created in the image
of God, a hope for God’s unfolding dream, a commit-ment to life in the
church and so much more! Jesus believed that all religious rules need to
support two primary commandments: Love of God and Love of Neighbor. That
is an eternal truth that still guides our lives today.
“The Living God does not endorse ALL the Bible says.” I believe this with
all my heart - I preach it with passion, teach it with humility and live
it with the Spirit as my guide in the midst of the community of faith.
Such a ministry can be infectious - Greg Sheets, one of our teenage confirmands
writes: “I believe that the word of the God that is still speaking cannot
be found in a book written long ago. Instead, it can be found in the hearts
and souls of us all.” Amen!
The Rev Michael L Stephens,
pastor,Southwood United Church of Christ
7904 Raytown Rd, Raytown,
MO 64138, www.southwooducc.org
Vern's inquiry:
I write the Wednesday "Faiths and Beliefs" column in The Kansas City
Star. I'm working on a column about a local pastor who has installed
a sign outside his church which reads, “The Living God does not endorse
ALL the Bible says.”
His point is that the Bible was written by men (he emphasizes the gender)
thousands of years ago who could not possibly have known about many of
today's concerns, such as "stem cell research, weapons of mass destruction,
democracy, the origins of the universe, handguns, Facebook" and such.
He also says that we now understand through the Living Christ that practices
accepted in the Bible such as polygamy and slavery are evil, and
that practices condemned by the Bible such as homosexual relationships
and women speaking in church can actually be Spirit-led. He says that the
Word of God is not the Bible but the Living Christ.
. . . .
Would you be willing to comment in a paragraph or two or three about the
authority of Scripture and how it should be interpreted and applied . .
. ?
Perhaps there might be one point of agreement between you and the pastor
(and I would certainly agree): In is regrettable that so many folks who
claim the Bible is important to them actually know so little of what it
says.
Dean Thorvald B. Madsen,
PhD, responds to Vern's inquiry:
This pastor’s
comments suggest that God, even with the resources of omnipotence, didn’t
manage to get an inerrant Bible out of his apostles and prophets.
The latter made mistakes, and God couldn’t do anything about it.
Jesus, on the other hand, remains the “Living Christ,” in this pastor’s
view, just as he has been for orthodox Christians down through the ages.
But one can’t really have it both ways, allowing for an Incarnate Word
while denying the inerrant, Inscripturated Word. The power which
makes the one possible also allows for the other. So the pastor has
adopted an implausible view, just on its face.
The pastor
also claims that since the biblical writers lived thousands of years ago,
no modern person can trust what they say about ethics. But this argument
confuses moral principles with passing circumstances to which they apply,
whether back then or now. Take the case of stem cell research.
Obviously the biblical writers could not have entertained this question
raised by modern technology. However, they gave us moral principles
that always apply, even to a case like this one, because they are logically
necessary and, therefore, both timeless and unchanging. Should we
conceive human beings for experimental purposes? May we use deadly
force for self-protection? What boundaries should we respect in dealing
with others, however we happen to meet them? We have only one way
to answer these questions, if we are not relativists: we appeal to the
fundamental principles of morality as articulated in Scripture and known
to us (at least partly) by moral intuition.
The question
of whether practices like homosexuality can be “Spirit-led” will depend
on whether they are morally wrong, at the end of the day; and the evidence
here is conclusive. The same Bible which tells us about Spirit-leading
also forbids homosexuality, expressly and unambiguously. The same
conclusion follows from our basic, moral intuitions about homosexuality.
Everyone knows, deep down, what the biblical writers have been telling
us about this behavior all along: it is psychosexually abnormal and morally
wrong. Therefore, one cannot pick and choose, embracing what the
Bible says about the Holy Spirit while rejecting its consistent prohibition
of sexual intercourse outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage.
As for the origin of the universe, our theoretical choices here are simple.
Either the universe came from God or it sprang into being without cause.
There is no third alternative.
Thorvald B. Madsen, PhD,
Dean of the College
Midwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary
5001 N. Oak Trafficway,
Kansas City, MO 64118
READER RESPONSE
READER:
Dear
Vern, Some of us do read the bible and are quite capable of discerning
heresy and teaching that is to the contrary of what it says. You are probably
a homosexual because you are forever coming up with excuses for this vile,repugnant
sin. You might want read your bible once in awhile and see what it says.
It was wrong a thousand years ago and will always be. Please continue with
your dirty, filthy lifestyle but stop trying to justify it to people who
know the truth. -- Robert Rauch
VERN:
Dear Rob-- I do not respond to name-calling as I believe it is unChristian.
But I will respond to your other points.
I
think today's column presented two sides. In fact, folks do have various
opinions about the issues identified in the column -- slavery, women speaking
in church, homosexuality -- and other issues which some folks do not find
addressed in the Bible, such as stem-cell research, WMD, etc, as identified
by Pastor Stephens.
You
might be interested in knowing that I have quite a few shelves of Bibles
including in the original languages, studied with some of the great Bible
teachers of our time when I was completing my doctoral degree at one of
the finest divinity schools in the country, and have myself taught in Baptist
and Methodist seminaries as well as several universities. I have taught
Old Testament and New Testament, among various subjects for which I was
responsible.
You
state that I am forever coming up with excuses . . . but nowhere do I offer
my own opinion except that I think folks should know what is in the Bible.
It
is curious that you would suggest that I should read the Bible when that
is exactly the point I was making, both in the first paragraph and near
the last:
"Even
after 40 years in the ministry, I’m still surprised that so many folks
claiming allegiance to a particular holy book don’t know what’s in it.
This, alas, is true of many Christians. . . . .
"Your approach to faith and knowing what’s actually in the Bible may affect
how you view many questions with which our society struggles today."
While
I am not at all sure you understood this, that I am urging folks
to see for themselves what is in the Bible, I am glad you read the column
and took the trouble to write me. . . .
READER:
Jesus
didn't come to leave us a book. He came to save us from Original Sin and
the effects of it. He left a church to protect the Deposit of Faith. The
Deposit of Faith is the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the
Apostles and handed on by them to be preserved and proclaimed. A book or
rather a library of books called the Bible grew out of that.
Once
Martin Luther 'protest'ed against this Apostolic Church he opend the door
for the thousands upon thousands of Bible believing Churches that teach
different 'truths'. A move he later regretted.
The
Bible must be read through the eyes of Apostolic Tradition (or Sacred Oral
Tradition) to be seen in its fullness or intended state (if you will).
--trapblock
READER:
I
have on my shelf over 20 different Bibles - which one would Dr. Madsen
say is the "real" one? Inerrancy is nowhere claimed in the Bible - that,
like infallibility, is a human judgment, not a Divine commandment. Jesus
himself released mankind from some of the Torah commandments, otherwise
all Christians who eat shellfish or pork would be condemned.
Either the Bible is to be taken literally or humans will interpret it for
themselves. How many different Christian denominations are there, all passionate
about their own interpretations? The Bible is a history of mankind's gradual
understanding of God, from primitive tribal beliefs to the incredible understanding
of humanity's relationship with God revealed by the Carpenter of Nazareth.
People of Dr. Madsen's persuasion are welcome to accept the Bible as inerrant.
But if God created mankind in His likeness and image, She gave us free
will and reason for a purpose. To not use those talents would be to waste
what we were given.
Some of us were made natural skeptics; for us, any dogma must also past
the test of reason. That is not to say we have no faith; rather that our
faith must be grounded in rationality, not superstition.
C.S. Lewis says that humans have an innate God-given morality. Toleration
of others' sexual preferences, like racial tolerance, is more a test of
our ability to love our fellow human rather than grounds to condemn them.
--neer668
811. 100331 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Religious myths powerful
The most important Biblical story for the
Jews is now being commemorated by them. It is Pesach — Passover, and it
recalls the preparation and exodus of the Hebrew people out of Egyptian
slavery.
The story has been important
for Christians as well. For example, in Memphis, just before he was assassinated,
Martin Luther King Jr spoke to a black population like those enslaved in
ancient times, marching to freedom. He was a Moses figure, for like Moses,
as King foretold, he did not get to the promised land, but he asserted
that “we as a people will get to the promised land.”
The most important Christian
story is Easter, this Sunday. This holy day celebrates the Resurrection
of Jesus, victorious over sin and death.
In the technical language
of religious scholars, these stories and the central stories of every faith
are called “myths” — but “myth” does not mean “falsehood.” On the contrary,
it means a truth much larger and more powerful than mere literal fact.
A myth is a story in which
we somehow participate. It may be, as for the Jews, in the ritual of the
seder meal which reaffirms relationships with God and one other as a community.
For Christians, it may be the Eucharistic Meal or Communion, in which one
spiritually unites with or contemplates the risen Christ.
For all faiths, myths are
paradigms or prototypes of how one should live one’s life. It is impossible
to exhaust their meanings, but here are examples. For Jews, Passover may
be a rededication to work for freedom and justice. For Christians, Easter
may renew resolve to live with the kind of concern Jesus had for the sick
and the poor, or with the faith that new life may arise from darkest tragedy.
Myths are true in the
sense of being genuine; that is, they tell us what is “sacred” — that on
which our lives depend, the ultimate source of meaning for us, stripped
from spurious distractions. Through narration, a myth symbolizes and directs
us toward the sacred, what really counts.
Knowing myths about the Navajo's
Spider Woman, Krishna, Buddha and others beyond our own sacred story blesses
us with the world-wide testimony of human encounter with the sacred.
Many secular stories — Cinderella,
Superman, Hamlet — also resonate with our hopes and fears. Some psychologists
say that individuals have life scripts, stories like myths in that they
provide patterns for our lives.
Such patterns will be explored
tomorrow at 7 p.m. at the Tivoli Theater when Open Circle Spiritual Cinema
Series presents “Mythic Journeys,” followed by a discussion with Kansas
City mythologist James Mayfield Smith and others.
CRES WEB SITE NOTE:
Smith will be accompanied
by Cynthia Jones, founder of Diana’s Grove Mystery School and Greg Reike,
former president of the Kansas City Friends of Jung.
King was assasinated
on April 4, 1968. Easter was April 14.
Perhaps an alternative headline
might have been "Anyone may ask these questions."
810. 100324 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
We all seek same answers
Which of these questions, sometimes put
to me, do you ask? I won’t give answers, but I will have a comment after
you read through them.
Personal. Is my life fulfilling
and useful? Do I really know myself? Where is my greatest love? How do
I fit into the larger scheme of things?
How do I find peace of mind?
How should I deal with disappointment and betrayal? What do I do with feelings
like guilt and shame, devastation or elation?
On whom or what do I ultimately
depend? What does it mean when I’m overcome with a sense of beauty or transcendence
beyond the ordinary?
How can I be less judgmental
— or when should I be more judgmental?
Social. How do I deal with
people claiming to have answers they want me to accept but that I don’t
understand or that don’t work for me?
How should I evaluate political
issues from a cosmic perspective?
What is the right amount
of wealth I myself should enjoy and how much should I give to benefit others?
How can I believe in a universal
moral order when wicked people prosper and good people suffer unjustly?
Environmental. Do earthquakes,
floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters* arise from forces beyond
nature? And does the beautiful day I wanted just happen or am I being rewarded?
How can I be responsible
for protecting the environment for future generations when I live in a
culture mostly consuming instead of renewing the environment?
Comment. All of these questions
can point us toward ultimate spiritual values.
And all of these questions
can be asked by both those who believe in God and those who do not.
A 2008 study found that 15%
of Americans identified with no religion or were atheist or agnostic. This
group, sometimes called “Freethinkers,” is larger than any religion currently
represented in local interfaith groups except Christianity.
Former Star columnist Bill
Tammeus, a distinguished Christian layman and “Faith Matters” blogger,
spoke last month to a group of Freethinkers. Citing a noted Christian theologian,
Tammeus encouraged “discussion with people of faiths different from ours
and with people of no faith at all.”
When I founded the Kansas
City Interfaith Council in 1989, I could find no Freethinker bold enough
to accept such an invitation. In the decades since, with increased Freethinker
visibility, the situation is changing.
To enlarge and refine our
own answers to questions such as those I’ve listed, we need to explore
how everyone, believer and non-believer, wrestles with them.
CRES WEBSITE NOTES
*famine, pestilence (epidemics,
pandemics), tsunamis, volcanos, draught. . . .
When Eboo Patel,
Muslim founder of the Interfaith Youth Core spoke here last November, he
emphatically answered Yes to a question from the audience about whether
atheists should be included in interfaith activities.
Other questions:
What is transient and what is permanent? What is most meaningful to me?
Should I enjoy the gift of life or focus on serving others? Where does
my duty lie? Why accidents, random violence, death?
The study of
religion can give insights, if not answers, to these questions, and disciplines,
if not decisions, for how one lives one's life.
For a Mayor's
Prayer Breakfast including atheists, see also Note
810n.
For a readers'
responses and my comments, see Comment 810c.
READER COMMENT
READER:
. . . You did well in posing the questions that many are asking; however
I felt your conclusion, and evidently the conclusion of Bill Tammeus--that
exploring "how everyone, believer and non-believer, wrestles with them"
is the source for "refining and enlarging" our own answers--directs people
to more confusion rather than certainty.
Perhaps
another question is, "what is the purpose of my exploration?" Do I wish
to look at the wide array of beliefs and non-beliefs as a phenomenon outside
myself? Or am I looking for a source of certainty and certitude for myself?
If the purpose is the latter, trying to choose between what we hear from
others, will often lead to disappoitment and dismay.
The
fact that so many of us have these questions today seems to me to indicate
that the human spirit is aware, perhaps on a subconscious level, that we
are living in a new situation in which the "faith of our fathers" does
not always suffice. Perhaps we're also subconsciously aware that we have
our own powers of reason and can discern "truth" when we find it; that
is, the certainty that our mind seeks and the certitude that will satisfy
our souls, will be the result of the exercise of our own powers of discernment.
One
of the reasons that we are questioning, it seems to me, is the possibility
that religions of the past, based on the Word of God and sent to us through
His love for us, were not intended to be closed systems which then decayed
(according to the second law of thermo-dynamics which says that a closed
system without outside intervention will result in chaos); but the immaturity
of man turned the Word into dogmatisms. Our questioning today is a dissatisfaction
with these dogmatisms, not with the essence of the Word of God itself.
Where
will we find the renewal of the efficacy of that spirit-satsifying Word
of God's love for us and our love for Him? That is the essential search
that is in the hearts of Free-Thinkers and many others. (By the way, I
deplore the seeming necessity in today's world to put everyone in one category
or another. Can't we just be individuals, having our individual experiences?)
How about looking at history itself. Every 1000 to 1500 years God has sent
a Spokesman to the world, and that lapse of time has occurred since the
time of Muhammad. Why not look into the claims of The Bab and Baha'u'llah?
Could they be the new Voices that answer the questions for today?
I
know you have heard this response before. I hope you will regard this as
an invitation to add another dimension to the searching that seems to be
increasing in intensity throughout the community of mankind here in Kansas
City and elsewhere. . . .
VERN:
. . . For myself, I prefer confusion over certainty, which, as I study
the history of religions (and politics, etc) too often leads to terrible
outcomes. For myself, a measure of confidence is healthier than certainty.
I guess I just have discovered too many irreconcilable insights in too
many places to find any one set of answers to encompass all the others.
I do agree with you that closed systems are dangerous. Alas! there is not
a single religion I have encountered that is not misused this way, not
a single one, from the beginning of time to the very present. Those who
suggest their religion is the one that escapes this persistent problem
are unfailingly beautiful in spirit, but perhaps unaware of the dynamic
we deplore in their own tradition. . . .
add oldfather
JonHarker
wrote on 3/27/2010 --
Vern, are you an atheist? And, given your Moral Relativism, is there anything
you will take a stand for?
809. 100317 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Offering a prayer for understanding
Among the area’s yearly prayer breakfasts,
none I know compares to the one sponsored by the Raytown Community Inter-Faith
Alliance. Most prayer breakfasts are designed around a speech by a high-profile
figure, with a nice meal and a perfunctory prayer. But the Alliance event’s
focus is actually prayer.
Before the featured speaker,
people form teams at their tables to write local, national and global prayer
requests on index cards of three different colors. During the speaker’s
remarks, a committee collects, studies and arranges the cards. Then three
people, one for each set of cards, lead the assembly in prayer.
I like this because the whole
group gets to hear what everyone is praying for.
But the speaker is also important.
And this year for the first time a Muslim will address the group.
Adam Smith, the Alliance
president and an attorney, became acquainted with Hussain Haideri, a nephrologist,
through Smith’s wife, a nurse practitioner in Haideri’s office, and invited
him to speak at the breakfast.
The Rev. Harold Johnson,
a long-time member of the Alliance, said the group tries to help the community
to become better acquainted with its diversity. He noted that the Alliance’s
speaker at its Thanksgiving program last year was Jewish.
Haideri has been president
of the Crescent Peace Society, a local Muslim group organized in 1996 by
Shaheen and Iftekhar Ahmed to “enhance the understanding . . . as to who
we (Muslims) are and what we stand for,” according to the organization’s
web site, crescentpeace.org.
Haideri says that there are
many misconceptions about Islam. Its belief in democracy is not well understood
because some nations claiming Islam “ignore the just form of governance
Islam advocates to hold onto power,” he said.
“As a religion, Islam also
fosters respect for the rights of the people, and the welfare of all sections
of the population, irrespective of religious and political affiliations.
It requires justice for all, a code of conduct for governmental leaders
and accountability for even those holding the highest office,” he said.
Often I get hateful emails
spewing falsehoods about this, that or another faith. So at the breakfast,
I’ll be praying for greater understanding of Islam and all faiths, locally,
nationally, and throughout the world. My prayer will include giving thanks
for groups like the Alliance and the Crescent Peace Society that multiply
the power of personal relationships, like the Adams-Haideri acquaintance,
into community-wide strength.
For information about the
Mar. 25 breakfast, contact the Rev. Michael Stephens, southwoodpastor@yahoo.com
or 816-353-9090.
READER COMMENT on Star website: Ben_Yahood wrote on 3/19/2010 8:25:01 AM:
There
Vern goes again, whitewashing Islam. It "fosters respect for the rights
of the people, and the welfare of all sections of the population, irrespective
of religious and political affiliations”??!!! That hardly squares with
the doctrines of infidel, dhimmi and jizya, and, is, in fact, a whitewash
of Islamic supremacy.
[The
writer has also objected to previous columns, such as, in part:]The
ambassador -- and Vern -- may wish to downplay it, but the Islamic concepts
of Dar al Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar al Harb (the Land of War) are
very much at work today . . . .
808. 100310 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
A model of our urban core
Before we discuss the modern city, here’s
some background.
David conquered Jerusalem
about 3000 years ago to make it the capital of Israel. The kingdom split
about 80 years later; and after another 200 years, the Assyrians crushed
the northern kingdom. The southern kingdom survived for another 125 years
until the Babylonians subdued it and exiled much of the population.
After perhaps two generations
of captivity, Jews were encouraged to return home. Prophets offered insights
into the rebuilding of the nation, and particularly Jerusalem, its urban
center.
You know our local history,
including [emancipation, in-migration,] redlining, blockbusting, white
flight and urban sprawl.
In some ways the challenges
of today’s inner city parallels the bleak biblical situation, according
to Wallace S. Hartsfield II lecturing [February 9] at the Gem Theater just
before he was installed as professor of Hebrew Bible at Central Baptist
Theological Seminary. He is also pastor of Metropolitan Missionary Baptist
Church, where he succeeded his father [in 2008].
Populated by those who had
never left and those who were returning from captivity, distressed Jerusalem
is like today’s inner city, ruined and exposed. What is the remedy for
a “density” inadequate to bolster the people’s hopes?
Hartsfield identified four
responses from post-Exilic prophets, focusing on the role of religious
institutions.
Haggai agitated against discouragement
and complacency. While resources to address the city’s plight were few,
he said building and serving the temple, the executive source of divine
order, would produce prosperity.
Zachariah’s mystical vision
required a moral transformation with God guarding and dwelling in the midst
of a diverse people, with the city guided by civic and religious leaders.
Malachi criticized the priesthood
for its failures and warned that if God’s presence departs, the city falls.
The temple should mediate divine order for the city.
Trito-Isaiah, whose writings
scholars find in Isaiah 56-66, said that the temple should be open to foreigners
and its sacrifice replaced with liberating service to the poor and broken-hearted.
What is the role of today’s
religious leadership — confrontation, transformation, meditation or liberation?
Hartsfield said that no single model applies to current urban problems,
but each may fit a different situation.
However, in sum, reconciliation
is the heart of restoration, he said, and faith communities must participate
in the rebuilding of the wounded city.
To create true community,
those who have not talked together must find common ground. Righteousness,
Hartsfield said, must be our ultimate concern.
This column has been quoted
and cited numerous times, including
World
News
CCO
(Communities Creating Opportunity)
Central
Baptist Theological Seminary
807. 100303 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
‘People’ only in a
legal sense
The Declaration of Independence states
that “all men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights . . . .”
Like this historic document,
many faiths proclaim that each person issues from the divine.
But the U.S. Supreme Court,
split 5-4, may have inadvertently implied a new theology in “Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission,” deciding Jan. 21 that corporations are
persons under the Constitution’s First Amendment free-speech clause.
Lloyd Blankfein said last
year that he was “doing God’s work” as head of Goldman Sachs investment
bank. Still, in what sense is even a very good corporation really a person
with inherent, rather than calculable, worth?
Nancy Howell, professor of
theology at the Saint Paul School of Theology, says, “In Christianity,
I am persuaded that the prophetic texts of the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels
in the New Testament insist on relationships, but not of the rich and privileged
with each other.
“Instead, Christian roots
point us toward setting aside privilege in order to identify with the disadvantaged
— in Bible language, the poor, the widows and the orphans.
“If only the Supreme Court
had ruled that the poor and disenfranchised persons could have relatively
unlimited access to political influence, what a difference that might make!
As it is, the status quo which benefits the privileged is reinforced.”
Thomas Noble, professor of
theology at the Nazarene Theological Seminary, distinguishes personhood
from individuality, which can imply separateness.
“The Christian idea of personhood
derives from one God in the three ‘persons’ who are in relationship with
each other. Thus what it means to be human is to be in relationship,” he
said.
But Noble questions “whether
a top-down business corporation can routinely deal with the ethical questions
involved with ordinary personal relationships where the focus is on mutuality
rather than profit,” rewarding the shareholder rather than pursuing the
wider good of the community.
Barb McAtee, Baha’i
Faith member of the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council, notes
that while her faith encourages trade, commerce and useful economic activity,
the sacred Baha’i writings suggest that corporations are the “legal constructs
of a secular society” and do not “possess any sort of mystical oneness”
as do persons created in “the image of God.”
In a Jewish
tradition, it is said that a choir of invisible angels cry ahead of any
person walking down the street, “Make way! Make way for the image of God.”
Do corporations, created
by governments, receive such angelic attention?
NOTE
This month’s annual interfaith
program offered by the local chapter of the National Council of Jewish
Women was on the theme, “May the God in me recognize the God in you,” a
way of translating the Hindu greeting, “Namaste.”
It is difficult to imagine such a greeting from one corporation to another.
The Supreme
Court, by inadvertently venturing into the theology of personhood, a danger
it avoided in Roe v. Wade by focusing on practical rule, illustrates the
peril in departing from common law and common sense understandings of personhood.
The court’s
decision has been summarized as invalidating “a provision of the McCain-Feingold
Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from
broadcasting ‘electioneering communications’ in the 30 days before a presidential
primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. The decision completely
overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The decision upheld the
requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements,
and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidates.”
The decision
was criticized by President Barack Obama in his January 27 State of the
Union address. A poll two weeks after the decision by ABC-Washington Post
showed opposition from 80% of those surveyed. The complete text of the
decision and accompanying opinions can be found on the Court’s website,
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Much of the
comment since the decision has focused on its effects, anticipated by Justice
John Paul Stevens in his dissent, “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus
a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized
a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the
founding, and who have fought against the di
