Tuesday, January 29, 2008

DIY


The summer following the passing of John Paul II, a World Youth Day took place in Cologne, Germany, at which he had been scheduled to appear. Instead, it morphed into a "Meet the New Pontiff" event for Benedict the 16th. This gave the new pope the opportunity to set the tone for his era--and set it he did, railing against what is clearly the scourge of our time: do it yourself religion. Of course, DIY can have a positive connotation, evoking that can-do spirit that keeps the world turning. But the pope didn't mean it that way. He meant it in a Homer Simpson in his basement, splicing wires together with a hot glue gun sort of a way. Don't try this at home, the pope seemed to be saying. Better leave it to the professionals.

Now, I wouldn't dream of going near the electrical panel, for fear of blacking out the neighborhood; and the closest I get to plumbing is when I switch the shower head from spray to pulse. But I am perfectly capable of handling my own spiritual life, thank you very much. Still, the fact that hierarchical faith organizations have flourished for all these millennia does point to a desire for spiritual guidance. This has led me to wonder: where is the dividing line between seeking assistance and ceding your own authority? As with most matters philosophical, I think there's a range of answers that can coexist. But some factors seem to ring true for all along the spectrum:

1. Beware the guru--Does this sound too obvious? Perhaps, if the word guru brings to mind Jim Jones or the Bhagwan. But there are subtler personalities out there who can nevertheless infringe on our spiritual freedom. Anyone who wants your money is suspect, of course, or who would alienate you from your friends and family. I would add to this list anyone who is too much at the center of their social group, a 'giant personality' with outsized influence. Worst of all, though, is the intellectual bully. Having your beliefs or ideas belittled is spiritual poison. Even if you think the belittler might have a point, consider their motivation (as you head for the door).

2. Eschew the group--This is a tricky one, because if we're interested in something, we want to get together with other people and talk about it. That's great, one on one, or with a small circle of friends. Beyond that, it can be difficult to hold your own. Even if a group does not have an official leader, group dynamics necessitate compromise; what you don't want is to have to compromise your soul. So does that mean you must be completely alone with your beliefs? Not at all. If you want to share, find one or two other like-minded individuals, and start a dialogue. Then, if you still hunger for a larger community, join a group that has spiritual value for you--a yoga class, a book club, a wilderness trek--without compromising your freedom of belief.

3. Embrace diversity--A healthy soul depends on a balanced diet of information and opinion. Christianity may be in my past, but this doesn't mean I've discarded every bit of ethical or philosophical wisdom I gathered from the church; it's just become part of my store of experience, one that I hope will continue to grow. The greater variety of input you can get, secular and religious, left and right, sublime and ridiculous, the more confident you will be in your own beliefs as they evolve. Or, as I once heard a P.E. teacher tell her students: you'll always be healthy if you eat the rainbow.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto, you're beautiful!































Super-duper Tuesday is fast approaching, and I am still hoping against hope that Mike Huckabee gets the nomination, so that we can hash out this God v. Science thing once and for all. After famously raising his hand to silently indicate his disbelief in evolution, Huckabee has been a bit prickly on the subject. I actually feel some sympathy for him; reconciling faith with science is a thankless--some might say impossible--task. But I can't help bridling a bit at the conclusion of Huckabee's stock response, which amounts to "I don't believe in science, I believe in God!"

The fact that this argument works--on Huckabee voters, at least--seems to stem in part from a confusion regarding what, exactly, science is. To hear it discussed in evangelical circles, one might be forgiven for drawing the conclusion that science is a sinister cabal. In some ways, this is understandable: long gone are the days of gentleman lepidopterists in their smoking jackets, pinning specimens to velvet-covered cork boards. Amateurs have gone the way of the dodo. The technological requirements of science today necessitate an association with a faceless corporation, a liberal university, or the government. It's an intellectually exclusive world, cloaked in mystery and obscured with jargon. If you were to ask the average person to define science, it is unlikely that they would come up with an answer like "looking at something, and then thinking critically about what you've seen." It just can't be that simple.

But what if it were? What if the teaching of science got all the funding and respect it deserves, and all children were raised to be keen observers of the world around them? One thing that fundamentalists and atheists can secretly share is the belief that proper science education would result in a proportional increase in atheism. Perhaps, but only if you believe that God and religion are interchangeable. Science is never at variance with God; it's science and religion that clash. When you have a natural, independent relationship with God, there is nothing threatening about learning how old the earth is, or at what point humans became human. Discovering the wonders of God's universe should be a sublime experience. Each new bit of information gives us deeper understanding. Why not embrace science for the insight it brings to our spirituality? This is the beautiful, unfathomable, breathtaking existence which God has caused to be. So be it.

From the archives: Step back in time to the magical heyday of Intelligent Design, A.D. 2005. From May, the New Yorker reports on the infamous Dover, Pennsylvania school board; and from July, David Kestenbaum's excellent piece for Morning Edition on why scientists don't like to debate ID proponents (and it's not for fear of being struck by lightning).

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Letting go of Hell

A couple of years ago, my husband and I sat with some of his university colleagues in the garden of the hillside house we were renting overlooking Mt. Tabor. Wine may have been consumed. Ignoring the rules of polite conversation, I abruptly turned the subject to spiritual matters. "I believe in God," I announced to nobody in particular, "but not religion."

"That's funny," quipped the man across the table, "I'm exactly the opposite." This elicited a fair amount of laughter from the group--not because of its absurdity, but because of its truth. Somehow, this exchange had captured one of the essential differences between being raised Christian (that would be me) and raised Jewish (the man across the table). I am an ex-Christian, and have never looked back since walking through those heavy wooden church doors for the last time. It's not a part of my ethnicity, nor my DNA--1500 years ago, my ancestors were worshiping yew trees. There is no betrayal in my choice, no scorn, no deep sense of loss. But as he spoke, I instantly became aware of the vast gulf between our spiritual experiences. It's just different. Or so I thought.

What has me remembering this now was that Shalom Auslander's book Beware of God has finally made it to the top of my pile. I have read his New Yorker pieces with great interest, but it wasn't until hearing him on Fresh Air a couple of months ago that I had an epiphany, regarding ex-Christianity vs. ex-Judaism. As it turns out, there is something we have in common, and it's a biggie: nagging doubt. In Auslander's case, it's his inability to purge the God of his childhood; for me, it's the lingering threat of Hell.

Hell is easy to dismiss intellectually--not because it's nonsensical; to the contrary, it makes perfect sense...perfect human sense. It's just the kind of thing we'd dream up, the most brilliant instrument of control ever devised. Descriptions of Hell have human fingerprints all over them. Jonathan Edwards' Hell is fiery; Hieronymous Bosch's is a bad trip; Dante's is downright personal. Every version has a touch of the fabulist about it. There is no reason to regard Hell as anything more than the original Hammer Horror. And yet...

The bad news is that I have not discovered a quick fix for Hell. It takes time, however much time you need to build a strong, close relationship with God (about which more later). It takes as long as you need to feel sure that the God you know is not a God that could allow imperfect people to be punished for eternity, some without even being told the rules. You have to know God well enough to spot the difference between His constancy and the punitive, petty, brutal whims of the God of religion.

So, that's the long-term plan. But in the mean time? If you can't eradicate Hell right off the bat, let it work for you. On your way to putting your trust in God completely, there can be an intermediate phase. Have enough faith in God to believe this: if there is a Hell, God doesn't allow good, well-meaning people to go there. So be a good, well-meaning person. Be the kind of person who wouldn't go to Hell, if there were one. This may sound facile, but it really does work. If you've already got a job or a pastime that makes the world better, then focus on that when doubt creeps in. If not, find something to do that makes the world just a little bit better. Volunteer. Be kind to someone. Bring a treat for your coworkers. Let someone merge. Let Hell fade into the distance.

Required listening: Bishop Carlton Pearson on This American Life. Hearing his story is the first step toward curing yourself of Hell. And it's a pretty great hour of radio, to boot.