March 29, 2012

The religious side of Occupy

As Occupy has continued to mature, its religious component has become more direct, up front and articulate.

People from a large variety of faith communities met at the Judson Memorial Church in New York in December and drafted a religious statement in support of Occupy called, Waking Force.

Subsequently a group of religious leaders from around the nation met last week at an ecumenical Seminary in Berkeley, affirmed the statement and developed an additional action agenda. The statement is described below.

As a people from various faith and spiritual communities, we find the OWS Movement a Waking Force that has dispelled despair, depression and denial about the gross injustices of society and the suffering of our people.

We stand together for engaged, transforming action that says:

• Yes to open democracy, fair justice systems, and public conversation that respect every person’s voice in determining the quality and future of our lives.

• Yes to just economic policies that create greater equality and that enable all to share responsibility for the common good.

• Yes to a generous society that provides high quality education, affordable housing, adequate income, meaningful work, and universal access to health care.

• Yes to strong environmental policies that guard the well being of the planet we all share.

• Yes to peace among nations based on human rights, compassion for all who suffer, religious liberty, mutual respect and civil liberties.

• Yes to immigration policies based on hospitality and generosity and respect for the vast diversity of human beings by race, sexuality, class, nationality, ethnicity, physical ability, occupation, gender and age.

• Yes to the transforming, creative works of human imagination and freedom that enliven our lives together and bring us life giving joy and laughter.


We are part of this very new movement because these values have been betrayed by an economic and political elite who have proven indifferent to the common good and their moral obligations to the public welfare.

Their betrayal cannot go unchallenged. We will continue to apply our Waking Force
to grow this movement and it effectiveness. The well being of the world’s people and the delicate balance of earthly life hang in this balance.

March 23, 2012

As a believer I am deeply offended

by the prosperity gospel. In this morning's the LA there is an article about a legal battle inside the Trinity Broadcasting Network. The founders--the Crouches--continually beg for money which gullible people send in by the millions----mulch of which Crouch and his wife take for themselves. They buy a $100,000 van for their dogs, luxurious houses all over the country and much more. It is a blaspheme and a scandal. I wish the law could get them.
My temperature goes up a mile about this sort of thing---which is not limited to TBN.
It makes what many others of us do that much more difficult.


Accuse me of the NTS perspective--and I will plead guilty as charged. Religious fraud is still fraud, and is disgusting..

March 23, 2012

The scientific meta-narrative

Many of the questions I have been asked to address deal with the difference between the thought behind science and the thought behind religion. The following is an attempt to look at the way we come at this matter from different perspectives. To put down science because it does not use the methodology of religion is fallacious. So is the converse. Religion does not use the methodology of science. But that does not disallow it.

One of the compelling lessons to be learned from the post-modernists is that no system or perspective, which claims to explain everything, is legitimate. These “meta-narratives” always leave segments of society believing that they have all the answers to everything. Historically, when religion in general or a single religion in particular, assumes total control of knowledge and authority, civilization not only grinds to a halt but also regresses. Meta-narratives are always incomplete and flawed. Religion, however, is not the only culprit. The common meta-narrative of our age is “scientism.” The laws of nature as we know them are not only incomplete, but are also circumscribed by conjecture. However, to assume that science or the scientific method is the final reality eliminating from all discourse any other value, purpose or way to understand life, is the era’s basic meta-narrative. And that is where our culture currently finds itself.

How did we come to this societal conclusion? To understand the problem we need to go back to the 17th century and Rene Descartes. While still a dedicated Christian, with a profound faith in God, Descartes began to see that the control of life by the religious establishment and its thought processes stifled all other ways to understand reality. He studied mathematics, physics and what he called “the great book of the world.” Eventually he concluded that the only reality was the processes of the mind—indeed the mind was the totality of both meaning and being. He concluded that he was no more and no less than what he thought. “I think, therefore I am.” Only those things the human mind can deduce from an observation of the natural world have any legitimacy. Thus the burgeoning discipline called science became “scientism”—the meta-narrative that dominates us today. While Descartes contribution to the intellectual world has rarely been excelled, the most direct result of his work has been the trading of one meta-narrative for another. Now, “science is my shepherd, I shall not want.” So rationality means, ‘scientific absolutism,’ and to say that some person or discipline is not rational and therefore cannot legitimately enter any intellectual conversation, is to buy the absolute nature of the Cartesian model.

While religion must incorporate the Cartesian synthesis, it does not assert that it is the only reality. We are not just what our minds produce. There is purpose, beauty, meaning, values and the mystery that exist beyond scientism. These realities are not opposed to the scientific model, but only stand along side it as a way to understand the meaning of life.

One of Descartes’ most profound observations was that everything that cannot be proved—rationally and scientifically—should be doubted. When someone says, “I have facts and all you have is faith,” he/she has taken Descartes' doubt model as the whole truth. This is compared to the Socratic model which says that doubt is always the beginning of wisdom. In education one proceeds either from the deductive reasoning of Descartes or the inductive reasoning of the Greeks. The point is that each must exist beside the other as partners. Neither can be a meta-narrative, which explains everything. Faith in that which cannot be rationally proved, has its own legitimacy.

The other great challenge to the Cartesian rationalism is empiricism, (John Locke as the prime example) which holds that all knowledge is derived from experience. One believes in love, for instance, not because of a rational perspective, but because one has experienced it. God is not an entity to be proved, but an experience to be delighted in. Compassion is not good because it bends to the laws of nature but because one simply had been the object of compassion offered by another. Science also relies on an empirical analysis, but is not totally captured by it. There is room for those things which are never rationally produced even by the greatest minds. Beauty is not a provable reality. Beauty is validated only by experience.

Perhaps our culture is so totally caught up in the Cartesian synthesis we find it impossible to realize that this just appears to be our total reality. It is so much part of us we cannot even realize its ubiquitous reality. Ask a fish what water is, and it will say, “What’s water?”

March 20, 2012

Here is a newpaper column of mine which will be published next week.

WHAT IF A GOVERNMENT POLICY IS RELIGIOUSLY ABHORRENT?

The Administration generated a firestorm when it ruled that any organization using government funds as part of a health insurance program, is required to include contraception for all employees covered by the plan. When Catholic groups objected, the President backed off and decided that the insurance company, not the religious institution, must supply the contraception. This modification did not silence the cries that now mainly came from Republicans. The charge was that requiring a religious institution to pay for—no matter how indirectly—something that was contrary to its dogma, was a violation of religious freedom. The fact that no one—NO ONE—was required to use any form of birth control was beside the point. Even if the insurance companies were asked to provide the contraception without charge, it was held that the regulation still impinged on the religious sensitivities of institutions that contracted for the insurance coverage. So the issue was framed as religious freedom, not contraception.

When this matter came up in a recent discussion, a friend of mine suggested—with his tongue in his cheek—that maybe the government should not enforce any law or regulation that was abhorrent to someone’s religious commitment. My friend, being a pacifist, said, “Let’s start with war. Killing people in war is contrary to my religion, so why should I have to pay for what we are doing in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere? Millions of religious people and institutions believe war is contrary to their faith.”

During the war against Vietnam I took that notion seriously and every quarter when I sent in my taxes, the check was accompanied with a letter stating that only half of what I owed was enclosed. I would not pay for a war I found immoral. (The result of my decision is another story.) I simply objected to support a war with my tax dollars when my religion demanded resistance.

Significant numbers of us are morally opposed to capital punishment, so why should we pay that portion of our State and Federal taxes used for executions? Or why should Orthodox Jews pay for non-kosher federal meat inspectors? You see where this is headed? Should we have a line-item veto exercised by any person or religious group which sees a government expense as a violation of their religious faith? Or are we called to swallow, if not to agree, with whatever the Congress or our other elected officials decide is national policy?

I suppose it is perfectly legitimate for those who object to even the tiniest federal expenditure which might go to birth control, to deduct from their tax bill what they figure the cost to them might be. That is, after all, what I did during the Vietnam war. Nevertheless, I had to realize that I was in violation of the law, and that had serious consequences. Come to think of it, Catholic hospitals don’t pay taxes, they just take advantage of tax money other people pay.

As long as we are a nation of laws, we all have a primary obligation to obey them. If we choose not to, which is a perfectly proper moral position, we can do what our consciences call us to do. However, we cannot insist that the whole nation bow to our religious convictions. If we can get the law changed, that is another matter, but we cannot insist that a religious dogma become national policy. If we were under Sharia law that would be another matter. But we are not. No Catholic or employee in a Catholic institution is obliged to use any form of contraception. If a Catholic institution benefits from a Federal program, it cannot deny the rights granted under that law to employees, many of whom are not subject to church doctrine.

Finally, regarding the current debate over contraception, it seems clear from every study that the most significant way to limit abortions is to make contraception as widely available as possible. If their first priority is to be faithful to their church, Catholics shouldn’t engage in sex for any other purpose then to induce pregnancy. But it is the church, not the government, which has the obligation to enforce that edict.

March 14, 2012

What is happening in the religious world?

For sometime I have been asked to answer a series of questions about where theology is headed and how religion—principally Christianity—is plotting a fresh course. Some of these inquiries come as “gotcha” questions, and for sometime I have refused to dive down into that sort of non-dialogue. But others have been honest efforts to inquire as to where religion is moving. Over the next few weeks I will try and deal with the serious questions that have been raised, realizing that I may be accused of lecturing. I’ll take the risk and try to ignore the rocks, because I take seriously many of the questioners and the issues they raise. Those who continually state that all religion is irrational and superstitious will probably maintain their attacks, but I am not talking to them, nor will I respond. There is no discussion with a closed mind and an angry spirit. My purpose is not to convince anyone or convert anyone, but to shed some light on what is happening in the religious world, both in the academy and throughout the church.

In this initial reply I want to examine why so many find it difficult to accept the fact that theology changes, and thus find it hard even to hear about what is currently going on in religious circles. There are good reasons for this hesitation.

Most members of American churches are steeped in the old style of looking at their faith and the theology behind it. It is an approach which is both arcane and fading. It defies serious thought. It may border on superstition. For them God is still a person, a He, an omnipotent superman in the sky who looks down with both kindness and judgment. The Bible is taken literally. Supernaturalism controls God’s activities and nature. Only their religion is valid. Everyone else is wrong and subject to the hellfire prescribed for unbelievers. Science is an enemy if it contradicts the Bible or church doctrine. Women are second-class. Homosexuals are condemned and ancient tribal laws are honored. And there is more—much more.

When progressives, atheists, agnostics and the “nons” look at Christianity, this is what they see because there is so much of it. Thus they assume that this is what religion really is about. What is more, they are convinced that there is no other way to explain religion, or to talk about God. The mistake they make is holding that religion is exactly what traditional fundamentalists hold. While they reject fundamentalism—as they should—they cannot get by believing that this is all there is on the religious horizon. God is omnipotent, unmovable and unmoved. Religion is written in stone forever. Rejecting fundamentalism but insisting on defining all religion as fundamentalist do is a circular approach which allows no light or no new insight. All serious disciplines would be ground to a halt if that concept were universally accepted. Thankfully intelligent people are always open to what is being discovered and thought. I would not want to encounter a scientist or a physician or industrialist who thought otherwise.

In my next string I’ll try to explain why both religion and anti-religion have arrive at this place. It has to do with what we all assume is the final word about rationality uttered in the Enlightenment, and how is has defined both religion and its critics.
Obviously I have not yet addressed any of the questions, but just suggested why we have come to this impasse.

February 23, 2012

Is a candidate's religion a legitimate issue?

I do not usually post my weekly newspaper column here. While what I write flows from my Christian faith, I write in "secularese"--without religious language--so my stuff might seen inappropriate in this "religion" site. However, next Wednesday the following column will appear.

IS A CANDIDATE’S RELIGION A LEGITIMATE ISSUE IN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN?

In the fall of 1960, John F. Kennedy was in the midst of a hard-fought political race for the Presidency. Up until then no Roman Catholic had been elected to that office, and among conservative Protestants there was considerable agitation over the possibility of a President taking orders from Rome. Even at that late date, anti-Catholicism was rampant. The US had not yet appointed an Ambassador to the Vatican. That didn’t happen until 1984 when Jimmy Carter, a Baptist, did it--a move JFK opposed. In 1928, the only other previous Catholic candidate, Al Smith, was trounced by Herbert Hoover after a bitter anti-Catholic assault.

In a Houston speech before a large group of Protestant ministers, JFK made clear the relationship between his religion and the office of President. Here is a quote from that speech.

“I believe in America where the separation of Church and State is absolute…where there is no Catholic vote and no anti-Catholic vote… I do not speak for the church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

That speech settled the unrest, and JFK was roundly applauded for the clarity of his position. His Catholic faith would not determine the policies of his administration. A President’s religion was no longer to be a political issue—at least until now.

A year ago there may have been a few voices among some conservative Protestants concerning Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Mitt has tried to avoid the controversy and has never suggested his religious commitment would control his political agenda, were he to be elected. Nobody has seriously suggested that there would be a direct line between the White House and Salt Lake City. He only mentions religion as if he were referring to some generic term—like motherhood—and he is for it. His single venture into that territory was declaring that God had selected America to be the savior of the world. While this notion might be garnered from the Book of Mormon, what politician hasn’t said the same thing? That’s just part of the political rhetoric that comes with American empire.

Now comes Rick Santorum, who flaunts his allegiance to the relationship between Catholicism and government. His support of a Catholic version of Shari’a law ought to be enough to disqualify him. While most of us try to keep religion and who holds what doctrine, out of the public discourse, Santorum has gone far over the line, and now his religious commitments become a matter of public interest. So we have a perfect right to call for his disqualification on that basis alone.

In a Michigan speech on February Feb.18, Santorum said that President Obama’s agenda was based on a “different theology,” one which is not biblical. Here is a direct quote.
“He (Obama) is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do. The Catholic church has a theology that says this is wrong, and he’s saying no I’ve got a different, I’ve got a different — you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it’s different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church… If you don’t want to call it a theology, I’m fine, you can have them let me know what they want to call it.”

No, Mr. Santorum, the secular values of the United States Constitution trump the religious dogma of the Roman Catholic church. It is not that society wants to force its morality on Catholics, but that the Bishops want to force their dogma on everyone else by insisting that a medieval version of sexual morality is a divine command. No one, Catholic or otherwise, is required to use any form of birth control, and no money from the Church is to be used in support of the regulations.

During this already toxic political atmosphere, the American people do not need and should not tolerate the interjection of religious dogma that has no place outside the church that teaches it.

February 18, 2012

When questions were being raised about the relationship between his Catholicism and his candicacy,

JFK, in a speech to some conservative Baptists who had raised the issue, made it clear. His presidency would be one thing. His Catholic faith would not determine the parameters of his administration. Romney has tried to avoid the controversy regarding his Mormonism. His only venture into that territory was declaring that God--as he understood it--had selected America to be the savior of the world, at least in this century. But what Republican won't say that.

Now comes Rick Santorum, who not only flaunts his allegiance to the relationship between Catholicism and government, but to a narrow almost medieval sort of religion which he insists must be American political and governmental law. This Catholic version of Sharia law ought to be enough to disqualify him. While most of us try to keep religion and who holds what out of the public discourse, Santorum has gone way over the line, and now his religious commitments become matters of public interest. So we have a perfect right to call for his disqualification on that basis alone.

February 14, 2012

Does the new understanding of religious faith make any positive difference anywhere?

For a long time I have been a student of the religious life of South Americans—ever since the Spanish brought their conquistadores to subdue these “backward Indians.”
For a long time church leaders were in bed with the military and the landowners, who together ran Latin America for their own benefit. Most L.A. nations were military dictatorships. Probably the worst was Brazil, which was dominated by a clique of Colonels.

But a generation ago there came to L.A. a new theological movement, which has gained a significant following. It is called “Liberation Theology.” Sometime back I ran across the work of Bishop Dom Helder Camera of Recife, Brazil one of the nation’s poorest places. While he had come from the Spanish oligarchy side of the church, he found in this new theological understanding a whole different understanding. While he had always been a man of compassion, he discovered that the gospel is primarily a call to justice for the nobodies.

So he said, “I can spend all day pulling people out of the river, but sooner or later I must go up the river to see who is throwing them in.” He also said, “When I feed the hungry they call me a saint. When I ask why they are hungry they call me a Communist.”

Liberation theology—a new understanding of the Christian faith—has been vital in the democratic justice-oriented revolutions that have occurred all over Latin America. Thousands of Christian groups gather to work through the relationship between the message of freedom in the story of the Exodus, the new wine that they find in the Jesus story and how this understanding is important to their own culture. These “Base Christian Communities” work for land reform, the rights of the poor and bringing down the landed oligarchies and their military companions.

If you are interested in how the new Catholic theology works over against the old Catholic fundamentalism, discover what Liberation Theology is all about. If you are interested in how it affects North America, you may want to get hold of my book, “A Guide to Liberation Theology for Middle-class Congregations."

February 3, 2012

Religion and the new technology

My week was spent at a local seminary which hosted a conference on “the emerging church.” This young movement is composed of pastors and theological teachers from across the nation who are disillusioned with the traditional denominations, and who are looking for ways to build congregations around a new post-modern theology. The theme of the conference centered on ways to understand Process theology in building progressive religious institutions.

Instead of focusing on the theological implications of the conference, I want to reflect on the technological style of this group of young religious leaders, practically all of whom were in their 20s.

While world-respected theologians were speaking, I observed practically every participant sitting before open laptops. I have seen that before, but in this case the members of the group were also looking at their smart phones, most of them texting. They also had open a third screen reading a book or some other document. In addition many of them were taking pen and ink notes and listening to the lecture. During the question periods it was obvious that they were deeply tuned in to the lecture.

Here is my question. As you think about religious, theological or philosophic issues, what is the way modern technology influences your thinking? Current studies indicate that a difference or a change in technology alters the way the brain processes information. How have these new tools affected how you think?

January 30, 2012

Signs of a new reformation.

Hardly anyone here will probably be lusting to hear a report on a Sunday Church service.

But let me give you a quick look at what happened this AM in the Episcopal Church I attend. The service was the climax of a celebration of the 20 years in which the church has been blessing GLBT unions. The Preacher was the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire—who happens to be Gay. The Celebrant was the Rt. Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool, Bishop Suffragan of Los Angeles, who happens to be a Lesbian. The Congregation was several hundred affirming Christians. It was the second of four services this morning.

Much religion is symbolically carried by the stories it tells and the songs it sings. For those asking evidences that religion is breaking new ground, here are some of the words to a hymn sung this morning and written in a Roman Catholic Benedictine order.

“Sing a New Church”
Summoned by the God who made us rich in our diversity
Gathered in the name of Jesus richer still in unity.
(chorus)Let us bring the gifts that differ.
And in splendid varied ways,
Sing a new church into being, one in faith and love and praise.

Bring the hopes of every nation; bring the art of every race.
Weave a song of peace and justice; let its sound through time and space.
(chorus)

Draw together at one table all the human family.
Shape a circle ever wider and a people ever free.
(chorus)

Historically every time the church has been stuck in its traditions and practices, there has arisen a fresh wind that has cleansed it and put it on a new path.
While it does not get the press the fundamentalists and traditionalists enjoy, the winds are blowing.