Its Whats Inside that Counts

Well, it has been a long few weeks! I am feeling the rush of the ending of this semester, which is intensifying-as it always does-at this time of year. Fortunately I'm holding my head above water more or less without a problem. I have been on a roll with writing lately as you can probably tell, ad there is much more to come. Outside of this blog I did have some bad news this week-I was not selected for a position I had really wanted at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit. Nonetheless I'm not discouraged, and continue to have faith that everything will work out (I'm still waiting to hear regarding another position in Detroit that I interviewed for). I did have the pleasure of seeing Robin Williams live on Tuesday, in Syracuse as part of his Weapons of Self-Destruction tour, which was absolutely hilarious (raunchy, slightly blasphemous, equally offending to everybody and explicit-yeah it was good). Other than that I am enjoying being alive as always. As always a big thank-you for all of you who read my blog! I have recently significantly expanded my links-many of which are liberal (some flamingly so), but there's some more traditional ones mixed in there also. I'm trying to do better at reading the blogs of others-we'll see how well I do with. And on a non-related note...am I insane or does anyone else hear any spiritual connotations in this song?

Anyway, this blog wouldn't be complete without some type of spiritual observation, now would it? In a recent discussion one person stated that Jesus made the law "easier to observe" while another asked "If the Law simply says not to kill, and Jesus said that even to get angry at your neighbour you have killed in your heart, how could that be more loving, inclusive and forgiving? If the Law simply says not to commit adultery, where is the loving, inclusive, and forgiving liniency taught by Jesus if even to look at a woman with lust, one had committed adultery in his heart? Don't you think he was rather making the Law more difficult to observe?" This is a good point, and one I return to repeatedly. The essence of what Jesus is saying is simply "It's on the inside that counts". Rapid obedience to commandments and rules is not enough. While following the letter of the Law is important it is not simply actions but not intent that matter. The external is secondary to the internal. A fruit that appears good can be rotten on the inside, and so to is it with people.

I got an e-mail a while ago that compared being a Christian with being a pumpkin, whereby God washes the dirt of the outside, removes all the disgusting stuff on the inside, and then puts his own light inside. Corny as this may be it makes a real point: The inside needs to be cleaned, because that's where the problem is. The Universal Way is the path of dying to self and being born again, of letting the "false self" die and be replaced by the "Christ Within". That is the real aim of spirituality: Giving life to a dead heart, changing out a bad heart for a good one. It is not enough to simply refrain form the bad, we must become good. What is in our heart, our thoughts, are the root cause of our behavior. The desire of Jesus was to remind us of thought, to point out that simple adherence to an external moral code doesn't mean much. We need to be transformed, and we need that transformation from the inside-out. The goal was not to make the law easier to observe, but to address a problem with humanity, to demand that we learn the meaning of law. It wasn't easy then, and it isn't easy now. But Jesus was absolutely right then, and his teachings ring true even today.

Whats on the inside is what really counts.

Biblical Tidbits

Here are some general thoughts on the Bible that I recently came across:

1. When was the last time you saw a camel go through eye of a needle? I remember a friend telling me that he read somewhere that these words are based on an actual location-a mountain pass or a city gate-that camels could only pass through with great difficulty, perhaps on their knees. As it turns out, however, there is no archeological evidence to support this notion. Other explanations have been offered: Perhaps when the Aramaic oral tradition was written down in Greek the word for rope (kamêlos) was mistakenly translated as 'camel' (kamilos)-a slight difference in wording (and also a reminder of the importance of translations between different languages). However what seems most likely is found when one explores Jewish Rabbinic and Talmudic literature, which uses similar allegories, including the idea of an elephant going through the eye of a needle. For more check out this site and this one.
2. Did you know that Jesus forgave a terrorist? Marcus Borg noted that word "robbers" used to describe the two men that Jesus was crucified wit is actually a translation mistake: The original Greek is the same word Josephus used for Jewish resistance fighters, the Zealots...as Borg describes it, is in fact a pejorative term. The idea makes sense considering that ordinary robbers were not likely to be crucified. The significance of this is two-fold: For one it further reinforces that Jesus himself was not a political revolutionary, and also as a reminder of how far divine forgiveness will reach.
3. Several years ago I was in a conversation with a student at Roberts Wesleyan who suggested that Mary the sister of Martha was the same person as Mary Magdalene, a surprise to me since I always thought the two were completely separate individuals. Researching this recently I learned that the Roman Catholic tradition considers the two to be the same person, while the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions distinguish between the two. Since I wasn't there I have no comment as to which may be correct.
4. While reading some blogs on BeliefNet a while back (I rarely read anything on that site these days) one commentator kept insisting that the characters of the Bible, specifically the disciples, were "too human" for the Bible to be fiction. Evidently this individual was not familiar with great works of literature, that display humanity with all of their flaws (in particular Frankenstein is a novel that repeatedly shows the flaws of all its characters). Of course, this person was arguing that no religion with half a brain would venerate individuals like the Apostles, who were often portrayed in a less than flattering light the Gospels. It is a fair point, insofar as it doesn't seem to me that humanity always venerates those it should. Look at the gods the ancient Greeks worshiped. One would think that we would be somewhat logical in those we look up to spiritually but in reality our logic isn't much better than modern celebrity worship. Now I should clarify that I agree with this individual that the humanity of Biblical figures is extremely powerful (especially that it reminds us that we have worth given our own flaws) but that does not validate the historicity of the Gospels. Similarly, as Jewish apologists have noted, the fact that the disciples were willing to die for their beliefs only indicates that they strongly believed in something...while it is true that virtually no one would allow themselves to be martyred for something they knew to be a lie it does not prove that the claims were actually true-only that those who died believed them to be.
5. On that note I have heard replies from many who insist on the literal history of the supernatural events described in the Bible say "Well, God could do anything he wanted". Now, unlike many liberal Christians today I'm fairly comfortable with the supernatural. I believe that the Universe operates with natural laws, but I think there is more to the Universe than what we see and science has not yet addressed some things that we call "supernatural" or "paranormal". I therefore consider myself an agnostic on matters such as the Virgin Birth and the possibility that the Resurrection was physical-I can't prove that these things didn't happen and I'm OK saying that they are possible. At the same time the argument "God could do anything" doesn't hold much water. God could make a donkey sing like Britney Spears if He wanted to, but I fail to see the point. I personally see miracles as part of the normal condition of reality, that we simply don't see, not necessarily divine "intervention" as we normally see it (it also violates the idea of divine consistency). Many of the acts ascribed to God in the Bible sound to me like mythology and folklore, like that of the Native Americans and other cultures. I see no reason to insist on their literal historicity. My answer is always "The fact that God could do something does not mean that he did. I am not a pure naturalist, but I tend to be skeptical to claims of miracles and I prefer the humility of simply stating 'There are more things in Heaven and Earth Horatio...'"
6. I am constantly reminded of the many diverse ways in which the Bible uses the word "salvation" in different ways. Check out Matthew 11:28, Luke4:18, Romans 6:22, 1 Peter 1:18-19, and numerous others. There are many instances that speak of salvation as a present, temporal concern rather than some eschatological, ethereal or future event. My point is not to take away from life after death or the "end of all things" but simply to illustrate the diversity of ways in which Scripture addresses the topic (similarily the Bible sometimes refers to salvation in a universal sense and at other times in a restrictive sense). This should be a reminder to Christian Universalists that they cannot simply think that since all people are "saved" there is nothing for them to do. Similarly it is worth noting the considerable lack of urgency the prophets, Jesus and the Apostles had from saving people from "Hell"...the deeper concern seemed to be rescue from sin, not deliverance from the Hell we often speak of today.
   
7. The more I read the Bible the more fascinated I become with it and the more I desire to delve into it. As I've noted before the Bible does not supply commentary, introductions or background information-this is work we have to do on our own. Just as an example, the Gospel of Mark does not provide a primer on the world situation of the time, nor do any of the Gospels provide particularly detailed backgrounds to the characters who appear briefly in the pages of Scripture and then disappear, their journeys continuing elsewhere. Even Joseph never speaks. There are times I'm more fascinated by what is not in Scripture than that which is in it. I believe there is a need for a middle ground that respects the historicity of the Bible while avoiding our tendency to think it dropped from Heaven. I was annoyed by classmates in my Bible classes at Roberts who derided those scholars who questioned or criticized the Bible, or who dared to offer alternative explanations. Their response, without fail, was "They should just accept it." On the other hand I'm getting weary of those scholars who seem to determined to tear the Bible to bits and discredit all of it. As flawed as the Bible may be there is some connection between history and faith. Then again, the annoying thing about Truth and reason is that these things do not bind themselves to ideology, despite our best efforts.
   

Really?

This story from January of 2007 notes that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr may have been a liberal Christian to some degree. Interesting discussion to say the least. I am not an expert on what we refer to shorthand as the "Black Church", other than I believe there is a uniqueness to that tradition in that it has always had a stronger relationship with social justice and activism. As Barack Obama noted in The Audacity of Hope the African American strain of Christianity was not able to separate material from spiritual concerns or individual salvation from corporate salvation. Christian minister and social justice activist Jim Wallis added the following thoughts in an interview: “His theological liberalism was not an adequate foundation for what he would face later. I would argue that the more deeply one moves in the struggle for social justice … personal faith becomes more important.”

Huh? Would someone care to explain to me why theological liberalism doesn't prepare people for trials and tribulations in life? Am I missing a piece to the puzzle here? By this line of logic it would seem that only those with orthodox beliefs have the courage to stand up to the world? Or perhaps only those with a Biblical literalist view have the spiritual strength to stand up to evil. Such nonsense reminds me of the pamphlet that suggested Christians in Nazi Germany became impotent in the face of Hitler's evil due to liberal theologies that rejected the Trinity that had were somewhat popular in Germany at the time. I asked rhetorically about that previous situation why, then, did the Jehovah's Witnesses consistently reject Hitler from the beginning? Why is it that people of other faiths or those with no religion have been on the right side of issues of oppression and justice while the Church was dragging its feet? Liberals have generally been on the side of social advancement in human history-plenty of Biblical literalists had no problem with slavery or segregation. People of faith should be on the front-lines of questions of human rights but too often they are the taillights, not the headlights, of such change.

In fairness to Wallis he goes on to say "It’s a mistake to say social justice comes from demystifying scripture, becoming a liberal and then you become committed to poverty. There is a tradition that theological liberalism leads to a social gospel, but there’s also an evangelical tradition that Jesus brings you to justice." In other words, yes theological liberals embrace the social gospel but so do many evangelicals. Fair enough. I can buy that-its not an either-or choice, both perspectives can address these issues. Still, however, if I ever meet Wallis face-to-face one of my first questions would be for him to produce some type of proof that those with theologically liberal beliefs are somehow "not an adequate foundation" for enduring pain while fighting for what is right. How reciting the Nicene Creed, affirming the Five Fundamentals, or striving to avoid heresy provides a better foundation for leading the fight for social justice is beyond me. What is needed is a faith of deep commitment, deep spirituality, one that is centered on a personal connection with God and perhaps a mystical communion with Christ-something this article notes King had, even if his theology was a bit liberal. One can have that mystical relationship without adherence to orthodoxy-and I take sharp exception to Wallis's idea that King's faith "grew beyond the liberal theology" of his youth.

Us theological liberals can have just as much passion and commitment Mr. Wallis-and don't you forget it.

Scary Comments from Gandhi

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

"Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."

Recently at an interview I was asked what famous person-living or dead-I would most like to spend a day with. The answer I gave, with full honesty, was Mahatma Gandhi. To elaborate on my choice I explained that Gandhi was one of those few individuals who truly practiced what he preached. I absolutely cannot stand hypocrisy, in fact I prefer an honest sinner to a false person of faith (no matter their religion). Gandhi was a man of great quotes, but one of my favorites is "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence". For many people today of all faiths, especially those who consider themselves liberals, Gandhi has become a sort of de facto patron saint. Imagine my shock when I read the two quotes above. These are some of the statements Gandhi made concerning the Nazis, the Holocaust and World War II. They are, I think, naive, disturbing, and wrong. Wrong? Really? Gandhi wrong?

I post this primarily because it is important to remember that while we elevate the holy and prophetic individuals who walk among us in this life we need to remember that they too are human. Someone I know through the AUC noted it is important we be careful of elevating others onto a pedestal, precisely because of things like this. Personally I think seeing Gandhi and others as flawed human beings like us make them more approachable, more relevant to us. Those who are too beatific are difficult to relate to on any level. Another reason I post this is that I don't blind swallow teachings from, or follow the example of, anyone else. Such an approach that does not make use of our own ability to reason strikes me as dangerous. So while I may be a progressive, liberal Christian Universalist dude with an interfaith streak I believe it is important not to adopt patron saints without critically evaluating them from multiple angles, remembering that the greatest among us were still human-and that while Christians are flawed, so is everybody else.

Regarding the subject of the quotes, I do understand where Gandhi is coming from, it reflects perfectly his own philosophy of non-violence that guided his life. However, as Tim King pointed out, there is also a matter of justice to be considered in this situation. This post from American Unitarian Reform offers some great thoughts on the subject: "As Christians we certainly must love our enemies, but that does not absolve us the responsibility of protecting the innocent from those enemies. We may turn the other cheek, but we have no right to turn someone else’s cheek, even by omission and inaction. Jesus taught us to be ”innocent as doves” but also “shrewd as serpents,” or as Paul put it: “in regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.” Shrewd, adult thinking recognizes that not all oppressors can be talked down. So, although we may not hate our enemies, that does not mean we delude ourselves about the often violent nature of social reality. Jesus made this quite clear when he admonished his followers: “One who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one. The moral distinction is not between the violent and the non-violent, but between those who engage in violence enthusiastically and those who resort to violence only reluctantly and out of necessity. This is the core ethic of ius ad bellum, a just reason for war : that war is justified only when peace and justice cannot be simultaneously served." Tod Lindberg, in his book The Political Teachings of Jesus, observes that while there is indeed a radical pacifism to Christ's teachings it appears to be more of an endpoint than a suggestion that universal peace is immediately attainable.

Gandhi's statements to me seem to be proof that any belief, any virtue, when taken to the extreme can become a bad thing, as CS Lewis pointed out in The Screwtape Letters. There is a need for careful reflection in these situations, to consider the implications of such a practice. Though Gandhi was wrong on this subject he also stated-I believe later in his life-"I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor." In our own time the Dalai Lama has been fiercely criticized for not attacking the violence of the West. I believe like Gandhi the Dalai Lama is sometimes naively looked up to by modern liberals, but I believe that His Holiness has often a very mature, very Christlike, response to oppression and violence. And, like Gandhi, the Dalai Lama lives his beliefs, rather than reciting a bunch of pretty rhetoric.

So I still consider Gandhi a great role, a very Christlike figure-but at the same time I believe it is best to acknowledge his humanity. We must remember peace and justice are both concerns for the human race, and we must become peacemakers before we can work for peace in the world...it begins within, and we must truly be committed to it, prepared to live out our beliefs. That is the hard part, and there I have to give Gandhi credit I can't give to most of those have beatified him today.

Human Nature: The Scorpion and the Frog

Two things sparked my desire to write this post. First was Andy's blog on Total Depravity and the discussion it sparked; the other was the 11/10 execution of John Allen Muhammad, the DC sniper. I'm generally speaking not an advocate of the death penalty, but I'll be honest I didn't shed any tears in this situation. I did, however, start pondering human nature. I'm not sure how, but while surfing the Web I came across the fable of "The Scorpion and the Frog", which I had never heard before. Here is a link to the fable and an analysis of it. The fable itself reads as follows:

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Certainly makes one think of the old adage "No good deed goes unpunished" doesn't it? Like other cultural masterpieces-such as Lord of the Flies, one of my all time favorite books-it is a reminder about the frailty of human nature and how quickly our idealizations (IDOL-izations?) of it can be torn down. It is also a reminder that there are plenty of sociopaths out there, plenty of people in full denial. A wise man once noted that the sad truth is these individuals are reminders that all people do not respond favorably to kindness, compassion and love, in some cases you are only playing with fire. His Holiness the Dalai Lama observed that non-violence cannot conquer terrorism, because of the simple fact that "their minds are closed". It is impossible to reason with such people.

This writing naturally begs the question "How do I reconcile this disturbing admission with my belief in human nature?" Specifically, regarding my belief that humans are essentially divine...how does one argue that human beings are literally God's children, God-drops or divine sparks in human flesh, and yet it is seemingly in our nature to behave like scorpions? Regardless of how one feels about original sin we need to acknowledge there is something wrong with the human condition-something really wrong with it. Personally I believe that the real problem is that we are incomplete, and-for lack of a better word-immature. We are unaware of our divine nature, have not tapped into our inner divinity, and refused to understand the process by which we do so. Humanity has equal capacity for good and evil, plus the capacity to choose, and we have a base, animalistic instinct...as Robin Williams cracked God's attempt to hard-wire the male sex organs to the conscience were not successful. Whether we talk of a change of heart, change of mind, enlightenment, transcendence, union with divine, attaining Christ/God-consciousness, whatever term one uses to use, spiritual transformation is badly needed (as Steve H put it the question of the human condition goes beyond the problem of good and evil). A common theme to all of these paths is that they attempt to silence the Ego, to shut off cravings and desires, to help us grow up into what humanity is meant to be. To quote another comedian, George Carlin, if we haven't gotten where we're going its fair to say that we aren't there yet.

More importantly how do we deal with the unstable ones amongst us? Not surprisingly Jesus beat me on addressing this one: In Matthew 10:16 he proclaims "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves". I think his meaning is simple: Be good, be kind, be compassionate, be loving-but don't be naive. As a South Park character put it be "Tolerant yes, but not stupid!" The Nazarene knew about how unstable human nature was, and issued a pretty clear warning to be vigilant. It is too easy for altruists to carry a scorpion on their back and then discover-too late-that it is in the scorpion's nature to sting even those who love them. We must be shrewd in our interaction with others, even as we are compassionate. And we must be mindful of humanity's great capacity for both good and evil, and work to for good within ourselves and to instill that in others-it demands continuous, conscious resistance. It is important we not forget that. As for the scorpions? I have no desire to make them martyrs, but it is in our own best interest and that of society to simply say "Let go and let God". We can only trust that the Divine can succeed where the incomplete human has failed.

Why I'm not a Gnostic or a New Ager

I'm well aware that some of my views at times can sound very Gnostic and at other times New Age, yet I have always shunned both labels (as well as the New Thought label). What is my primary rationale behind such a denial? Well, let me begin by saying that I believe there is Truth in both traditions. Part of being a Universalist is to recognize the Truth in these traditions, and I believe there is a fair amount. At the same time, of course, there are errors in both traditions also. Speaking specifically to the New Age movement, I think it often falls into the trap of what TheoCenTriC calls "pop-mysticisms". Such pop-mysticisms are immature, feel-good spiritualities. The New Age movement particularly comes up with some bizarre ideas and practices (crystals, channeling, UFOs, pyramids) and I believe at times may even be dangerous (messing around with the Occult is not something I consider a good idea). Both the philosophy of New Thought and the spirituality of the New Age movement strike me as shallow and self-centered more than anything else. They have a tendency to use pseudo-scientific terms that are at times less grounded than traditional orthodox theology, and focus on manipulating the Spirit for self-benefit. Self-denial is out, prosperity is in. God is at our beck and call.

The biggest problem I have with the New Age movement is it bastardizes the great religions and butchers traditions by trivializing religious beliefs, carelessly blending traditions together and transforming faiths of rigorous discipline into a spirituality one can squeeze into the afternoon along with a cup of coffee. Indeed I think the New Age movement butchers other faith worse than Christian apologists do. Real religion, real spirituality, is not about endless personal affirmations, positive thinking and manipulating God into bringing us worldly success (some New Thought philosophy actually believes God is just energy we can tap into and control if we find the right teachings). And, of course, these movements can be pretty hypocritical...as much as they love to roast orthodox religion for using terms like "Absolute Truth" and demanding obedience to revelation they are guilty of the same things.

Now, I have no trouble admitting that I borrow some of their ideas. To a point, I agree with them on some matters of metaphysics. I reject the idea of a rigid separation between God and the Universe (I'm a panentheist), I embrace the idea that humans are inherently divine (i.e. that we are divine sparks, our souls made of the same substance as God), I'm totally OK with esoteric knowledge and practices and I love mysticism. I'm open minded on the subject of reincarnation and I listen to some of what the New Age movement has to say about life after death with moderate interest. I do not openly embrace complex metaphysical teachings about astral bodies and silver chords, the specific nature of spiritual realms (you'll never hear me say that I'm going to Summerland when I die) and the like, and while I believe in the power of positive thinking and the value of prayer I reject the notion that the Divine's primary goal is to help us attain worldly success. When it comes to Gnosticism, I regard it as any other spiritual tradition. It has similarities to Hinduism, Kabbalah, Sufism and some forms of Christian mysticism, plus I found some of the writings compelling. I don't really think Jesus was a Gnostic but I don't rule out the possibility. However I again disagree with Gnosticism on several points: I find the Gnostic belief that material reality is evil unacceptable, and their ideas of complex emanations (such as the Demiurge) to have no practical value. Gnosticism is too flawed for me to count myself amongst its ranks.

Overall, I disagree with the fundamental thinking of these types of "mysticism". There is value in this world, escapism to some flighty spirituality that focuses on other dimensions is counterproductive. The true purpose of faith is the practice of compassion and service; real faith is about self-denial, not self-indulgence. Real faith is not about material gain, nor does it attempt to manipulate the supernatural. Astrology and fortune-telling doesn't do us any good. As Bruce Bawer noted in his book Stealing Jesus these forms of spirituality make the same mistake as fundamentalism: They are purely focused on the first person. What's in it for ME? Where do I go when I die? The test for true spirituality is that it moves away from such petty solipsism in favor of becoming "other-focused". The route to divinity is found through simplicity, humility, service, selflessness and embracing the Kingdom that is not of this world. Yes, I believe part of faith is about self-help and self-betterment, about liberation from suffering and attaining happiness. Yes, I believe we should love ourselves. But none of this requires-in fact it denies-narcissism, which is the key to the success of pop-mysticism. So much of what passes for spirituality today is wishful thinking. The New Age section of Barnes & Noble, IMO, is a collection of postmodern spiritual erotica that simply tells people what they want to hear.

There is no doubt in my mind that people looking for answers, that the American public is desperate for spirituality, and this section of B & N is one of many ways to fill that void. No doubt pop-mysticism offers a psychologically satisfying answer, but I think it is too shallow to ultimately meet our spiritual needs, not to mention that its metaphysical promises are likely to come up empty and the Law of Attraction doesn't bear fruit. In the end, while the Gospel is Good News in the fullest sense of the word it is nonetheless still a very hard, and very challenging, message. Real spiritual transformation, real salvation, real happiness, and real divine union, all come at a great price. My advice to those who are desperate for answers is to accept that faith means to carry a Cross and have a thorn in the side, to acknowledge that the search for Truth cannot be filled by psychics, gurus and Scientology, and ultimately when we do commune in a vertical manner with God it will be more humbling than anything else. Now that's real spirituality.

The Lion who laid down with the Lamb

The subject of reconciling opposites has long been tied into religion. Through the ages we have pondered how God can be 3 and yet 1, how Christ could be God and man, how God's Justice and Mercy balance each other out, how we balance Love and Law, Faith and Doubt, Science and Religion, to name but a few. How do all these things work together? Do we live in a world of stark clear-cut opposites or the alternatives illusions? Is it Either-Or? Or is it Both-And? Can we believe in God and in science? Can one value Christianity and yet appreciate other religions? Can we simultaneously trust in Karma and Grace? This question is often on my mind. Our Western way of thinking is programmed divide and compartmentalize, we are both wired and socialized to think "Either-Or". However, I have never accepted this line of reasoning, in fact it has troubled me for ages. I resent spiritual paradigms that force us to choose between science and reason or God and faith. There has got to be a "third way" between the fundamentalisms of religion and science, a middle ground. I ask simply "Why choose?"

CS Lewis noted in The Screwtape Letters that anything-including any one virtue-pushed to the extreme becomes a problem. Buddhism has always stressed the need for a Middle Way. It is important to understand that such moderation is not simply a matter of splitting the difference between two camps, averaging them out so to speak, to come up with some new position that would be palatable to both sides. For one that approach rarely satisfies either side, for another I don't think such wishy-washiness is likely to mean much in the long term. Instead, I would suggest that rather than simply balance seemingly opposing viewpoints we look at them properly in their original context and then determine on where they speak the Truth. In this great post from American Unitarian Reform it is noted that "the sort of Law vs. Wisdom, Justice vs. Mercy, Knowledge vs. Life, and Lion vs. Lamb dichotomy that AUR views as the greatest danger to true monotheism, in which all things must ultimately be reconciled. When these complements are placed in contradiction to one another, as mutually exclusive options in an either/or choice, they defy divine reconciliation and slide into authoritarian and licentious corruption: Law becomes the tool of the tyrannous Beast, Wisdom the excuse of wanton Babylon. The truth is not found in the mere balance of opposites, as some simplistic New Age philosophies insist, but in their functional reconciliation. Just as the voice of Yahweh was said (Numbers 7:89) to speak from above the Ark of the Covenant’s ”Reconciler” (kaporet, כפורת) and between the two cherubim which Moses Maimonides claimed represented God’s punitive and benevolent aspects, it is in the reconciliation of Justice and Mercy; Law and Wisdom; Knowledge and Life; and Lion and Lamb that the Word of God is found." Reconciliation...such a beautiful word, so important and so appropriate to Christian Universalism, which is a faith all about reconciling the opposites.

So, in considering opposites it is not just about balancing them to avoid falling into the trap of extremes but also about reconciling them in a way that is functional. How can we use doubt and faith together to advance understanding? Consider that Karma and Grace together work in a way that makes more sense than either by themselves. How do we stay grounded in Christianity but acknowledge that Truth transcends it? How do we understand Law in the context of Love? How do we live a life that balances the Heart and the Mind? Let's practice a faith that is both Catholic and Protestant. The bottom line, as AUR states, is that we cannot idolize either side of the coin. We must instead be willing to seek Truth wherever it may be found, seeking aggressively, and understanding that seeming opposites can be reconciled in a way that works out for the greater good, as Romans 8:28 put it. Such is also the promise of Isaiah 11...the promise that the lion, the lamb, the child and the cobra, can ultimately live in peace. Its a beautiful promise.