RSS

Tag Archives: human-rights

The Problem With God

A friend in the Wisdom Circle I attend asked an important question recently: “How is it that the Religious Right can stand behind Donald Trump and what he’s doing to our country?”

For an answer, let’s further ask what the Religious Right is all about. Also known as the political arm of Evangelical Christianity, the Religious Right is an ultra-conservative faction which has historically – even though its “history” is in fact quite shallow – resisted secular modernity by harking back to a fictional “New Testament Church” when the Christian religion was morally, doctrinally, and spiritually pure.

Since that time, Evangelicals claim, the institutional Church has struggled to keep itself from compromising with “the world,” which is morally, doctrinally, and spiritually impure – damned, in fact.

As Western culture grew increasingly pluralistic, the only effective way of preserving its soul was to shrink the horizon of true Christian identity, defined by just a small set of dogmatic “fundamentals.” Over time, this horizon was identified increasingly with the middle class, and even more with middle-aged true believers, particularly middle-aged white men.

Ultra-conservatism, or fundamentalism of any kind, is thus a defensive reaction to changes around us that make us feel threatened and insecure. At its base is fear. Internally, however, this deeper anxiety is converted into resentment and channeled outwardly as anger, aggression, and violence.

A critical mechanism in this conversion of anxiety into aggression is the Religious Right’s construct of god.

The god of fundamentalism is authoritarian, uncompromising, offended by our sin, and vindictive in his prescription of “redemptive violence” (René Girard, Walter Wink, William Herzog II) and vicarious death as necessary for salvation. We can find him throughout the biblical writings, in both Old and New Testaments. This god has his “chosen people,” a “faithful remnant” and “righteous few” who obediently use every means to preserve their purity against the onslaughts of religious idolatry, cultural diversity, social change, scientific progress and secular globalization.

In other words, the Religious Right didn’t just make this god up. He was ready-made in the background of Judeo-Christian mythology.

It needs to be said, however, that other constructs of god can be found in the Bible as well. A minority report, comparatively speaking, conceived of god as supremely benevolent, universally compassionate, and unconditionally forgiving. This is the god sponsored by some of the Old Testament prophets (e.g., Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Hosea, and Jeremiah) and proclaimed by Jesus to be the one heavenly father of all nations, of the just and unjust alike.

Jesus, particularly, was intent on breaking down the walls of separation, and he denounced the Religious Right of his day (known as Pharisees) as deadly vipers and whitewashed tombs.

If we should set these two gods of the Bible side-by-side, we would have to draw one of two conclusions. Either there are (at least) two biblical gods, or else the god of the Bible is bi-polar, in the way he swings wildly between grace and aggression, forgiveness and vengeance, radical inclusion and everlasting excommunication.

The truth of the matter is probably that both conclusions are correct: there are as many constructs of god in the Bible as there are authors and communities represented in its writings. And any god that humans construct will inevitably reflect their strange tendency as a species toward wide irrational mood swings and compulsive behavior.

So, was the authoritarian angry god of the Religious Right just made up one day thousands of years ago by some insecure, embittered, and self-righteous middle-aged white guy? Or was that guy taken in by an ideology that seemed to speak directly to his worst fears, promising salvation through a renunciation of the world, a “holy war” against god’s enemies, and a final rescue to a paradise beyond the confusing grayscale of this life?

That’s a chicken-and-egg puzzle we probably can’t solve.

This entire meditation so far is really a post-theistic exercise in mythological meta-analysis. It has pushed beyond the stalemate of theism and atheism, getting past the question of god’s literal (or factual) existence in the interest of exploring his literary (and metaphorical) meaning. Even a humble theist will admit that the deepest mystery of being, which we objectify and personify under the guise of one god or another, eludes our mind’s grasp and most certainly transcends the boxes of any orthodoxy.

Coming back to my friend’s question, today’s Religious Right is standing behind Donald Trump simply because he is so much like the authoritarian god who stands behind them. His rhetoric of discrimination, his politics of inequality, and his brazenly immoral behavior are untouchable because he is their champion and only hope for an America that is safe again, pure again, and great again.

Their absolute devotion actually blinds them to his blatant violations of basic human rights and spiritual values. An aggressive, abusive, self-righteous, and glory-seeking megalomaniac is god’s man for the job.

By removing the immigrants who have infested our country, closing down every outlet of liberal democracy, and putting all enemies under our feet, we will finally fulfill our national destiny as god’s supreme City on a Hill.

When anxiety is so deep and pervasive, shrinking our horizon of membership so as to exclude everyone who is different and disagrees with us is one way – but it’s not a way through. To quote saint Yoda: “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Both for ourselves and for everyone around us.

The god standing behind the Religious Right and the president they stand behind are one and the same. They are dangerous, but their power is siphoned out of our collective imagination. We can imagine better gods, better leaders, and a nation much better than what we are today.

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Conversation Across Time

Recently I was browsing the bookstore (an actual one, with books!), when my eyes fell on three of my favorite authors. Like a spark across the gap, my mind was inspired. Months ago I had chosen a blog domain name “Tracts of Revolution,” with a vague intention of what I would do with it. Revolution seemed right: there has been a growing interest over the past decades in what is called the New Consciousness – a higher awareness of our place as humans in the expanding web of existence.

This awareness has “come to light” at various times and places throughout our history through individual men and women, who break open the box of cultural conventions that serve to domesticate our animal energies and secure our membership in the group. As instinct concerns the body (the organism and its reproductive success), tribal membership is about ego – the little identity we construct in the social nexus of our relationships. Is this all that we are? Perhaps our fate as a species is to work interminably (until we do ourselves in) on keeping our boxes in order, repairing them from time to time, and trading them in for more up-to-date ones as we bump along.

Not so, according to our brighter lights. There is also soul; not the old ego again, grasping at immortality and chasing its far glory, but a place (which is really no place) in each of us where all the clutching-and-chasing of individual life is (or can be) released into the vast mystery of being and received afresh again. This mystical rhythm of releasing and receiving, letting go and taking in, has been conceived in the wisdom traditions as the exhalation and inhalation of spirit (with etymology tracing through all the ancient languages to the life-power of breath).

Thus, in addition to an animal body and a tribal ego, we have a spiritual soul – although it’s only a stubborn habit of ego to believe that we “have” any of these. We ARE body, ego and soul. Each of these modes of being connects us to a distinct aspect of our human reality, not as pieces that might be added or taken away, but as inseparable parts of a whole.

Our brighter lights, both living and gone, serve as portals of a greater vision where the whole is revealed in profoundly unique yet perennially consistent ways. What’s perennial (enduring) is the greater vision itself. It’s not the particulars of mythology in which it may be packaged, but the transcendental unity refracted through them to the contemplative mind. The uniqueness, on the other hand, is a function of the visionary’s personality, genetic temperament, life experiences, historical time and cultural place.

One might use a fairly traditional religious vocabulary in rendering the mystery, as another speaks against religion. One might cross-reference different belief systems in an effort to highlight their shared assumptions and aspirations, while another tunnels through the baseboards to reveal their common origins. Still another might scandalize the rest of us proper citizens by pulling at the support beams, forcing us to see just how much of it is held together by pretense, bad faith, and blind tradition.

The book titles jumped out at me. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future by Friedrich Nietzsche was one of his great prophecies of our human fate. Sadly he died insane just before the dawn of the 20th century and his voice was lost under the growing rumble of the coming World Wars. Nietzsche was a key figure in the rise of a philosophical approach called constructivism, which holds that meaning is made (constructed) and not discovered. All of our belief systems are so much scaffolding erected against the Mystery; all we really have is “perspective,” never truth.

After the Wars, during the 1950s and 60s, two more lights shined into the cultural night. In 1951 a disaffected Anglican priest by the name of Alan Watts published The Wisdom of Insecurity: A Message for an Age of Anxiety, in which he offered a fresh analysis of the generalized angst that hung over the First-World cultures. Watts was fond of analogies and frequently warned that defining reality in our doctrines is like trying to bite a wall, or like dipping our buckets in the living stream and walking off with the river. His own attraction was to Buddhism, especially Zen, with its teaching of living mindfully in the unresolvable paradoxes of existence.

In the following decade, Abraham Heschel collected some early essays and addresses under the title The Insecurity of Freedom: Essays on Human Existence (1972). Heschel was a philosopher, poet and activist in the tradition of Jewish mysticism and wrote numerous books on religion and the spiritual life. For him, spiritual life cannot be divorced from our social responsibilities on behalf of the oppressed, the exploited, and the outcast. Heschel walked alongside Martin Luther King, Jr. in the march for civil rights, demonstrating his belief that what unites us is ultimately stronger than what divides us.

The Project

Tracts of Revolution is intended to be a conversation with, as well as a contrived dialogue between, two or more of our “brighter lights” from the history of philosophy, spirituality, art, science and politics. A few of them enjoyed success during their lifetime — Alan Watts even became something of a cult celebrity during the 1960s; but many died in obscurity, misunderstood or entirely ignored by their contemporaries. Even if they managed to attract attention, gain followers, and instigate creative change (revolution) while alive, a majority of them have been forgotten – or if remembered, then only memorialized.

Our treasury of revealed wisdom is fast approaching a minimum balance; soon we will have to start paying steep service fees for our career as a species on this planet. All of the – news release! – deep cancers in Gaia’s lungs (atmosphere), body (soil) and blood (water) that can be traced to human waste and rampant consumerism, along with the violent conflicts of nations, races, ideologies and lifestyles – many wonder whether we’ve already fallen past the point of recovery. I don’t believe we have … yet.

I want to engage a conversation not only about revolution (creative change), but a conversation that will serve to ignite a revolution in our time. There are a lot of voices – many best-selling authors and inspirational speakers – proclaiming that the way through will be by the route of a new metaphysics (quantum, new science), ancient magic (Mayan, Egyptian), hidden codes (Bible prophecy, DaVinci paintings), or telepathic communication (departed loved ones, spirit guides).

It’s not my intention to sweep them all under the same judgment, for perhaps some good has or will yet come of them; but I suspect they are more distractions than genuine revelations. What we need now is not just more lights, but better light – enough to wake us up, and enough to guide us along  the way to what we are becoming … which is more human, I hope.

You are invited to join me in this conversation across time. For a while, I’ll be immersing myself in the above-mentioned writings of Nietzsche, Watts and Heschel, spinning out the implications of what I hear them saying, and staging a series of conversations between them. What will come of it? Hard to say, and impossible to predict; but I have a “hopeful suspicion” that something revolutionary will come to light – a message both timeless and timely.

 

Tags: , , , , ,