Category Archives: Religion

Nirvana

Posted on by

The word Nirvana means “extinction” and it means the eradication of all evil desires, of all passions, of all egotism, so that the flame of envy, hatred, and lust will have nothing to feed upon. This is the negative side of Nirvana.

The positive side of Nirvana consists in the recognition of truth. The destruction of evil desires, of envy, hatred, and extinction of selfishness implies charity, compassion with all suffering, and a love that is unbounded and infinite. Nirvana means extinction of lust, not of love; craving, not of life. The eradication of all that is evil in man’s heart will set all his energies free for good deeds. He is no genuine Buddhist who would not devote his life to active work and a usefulness which would refuse neither his friends nor strangers, nor even his very enemies.

The above was written by Zen master Soyen Shaku in 1896.  He was Abbot of a Zen monastery in Japan and in 1905-1906 toured the United States giving lectures about Buddhism.  His lectures and other writings were collected in the book Zen For Americans.  I first read this book when I was in undergrad and was captivated by it.

 

Israel-Palestine, Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus

Posted on by

 

Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, wrote an excellent piece for the New York Times on the need to speak out about Israel-Palestine. Drawing parallels to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s very unpopular stand against the Vietnam War, she argues that we can’t remain silent on the apartheid, discrimination, and violence being perpetrated against the Palestinian people today. We can’t let a preference for order, calmness, or the status quo blind us from seeing injustice and doing something about it.

In this post, I discuss Michelle Alexander’s piece and reflect on a difficult statement of Dr. King’s about white moderates. I then relate this to the teachings of Jesus, which we know inspired and helped form Dr. King’s stance on justice and nonviolence.     

Israel, Palestine, and BDS

One of the movements protesting Israel’s treatment of Palestine is known as the BDS movement, which stands for boycott, divest, and sanctions. It draws inspiration from a successful BDS campaign which helped end apartheid in South Africa.  Alexander’s piece highlights examples of people who have faced repercussions for boycotting Israel or for simply refusing to sign a statement saying they won’t participate in a boycott of Israel. She highlights that anti-Semitism is still a very real and disturbing problem today, but that opposing policies of the current Israeli government is not in and of itself anti-Semitic. Quoting Alexander’s examples of retribution for the BDS stance:

Bahia Amawi, an American speech pathologist of Palestinian descent, was recently terminated for refusing to sign a contract that contains an anti-boycott pledge stating that she does not, and will not, participate in boycotting the State of Israel. In November, Marc Lamont Hill was fired from CNN for giving a speech in support of Palestinian rights that was grossly misinterpreted as expressing support for violence. The website Canary Mission –  which compiles dossiers on Palestinian rights advocates and labels them racists, anti-Semites, and supporters of terrorism – continues to pose a serious threat to student activists.

And just over a week ago, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute in Alabama, apparently under pressure mainly from segments of the Jewish community and others, rescinded an honor it bestowed upon the civil rights icon Angela Davis, who has been a vocal critic of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and supports B.D.S.

But that attack backfired. Within 48 hours, academics and activists had mobilized in response. The mayor of Birmingham, Randall Woodfin, as well as the Birmingham School Board and the City Council, expressed outrage at the institute’s decision. The council unanimously passed a resolution in Davis’ honor, and an alternative event is being organized to celebrate her decades-long commitment to liberation for all.

I highlighted in a previous post a Mennonite mathematics teacher who was denied a state contract to help train other math teachers. The reason was that she refused to sign a statement required by Kansas state law saying she wouldn’t participate in BDS. She teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to sue, and in January 2018 a federal judge overturned the Kansas law as a violation of free speech. The state tried to narrow its anti-BDS restrictions, but this, too, was overturned in July 2018.  

Even though the courts are starting to rule on the right side on this, I’m bewildered that people face serious consequences for a BDS stance or refusing to give up their option of boycotting Israel. Shouldn’t any person have the choice whether to buy products from Israel or from companies that play a large role in Israel’s illegal settlements in occupied territory? How is this position viable in an America that prides itself on choice and freedom??

The White Moderate

One of King’s more challenging statements is that white moderates and even liberals present more of a challenge to the liberation and economic emancipation of people of color than the KKK. This is because too often, white folks aren’t willing to personally risk anything to help change the rules that are stacked against people of color. Although there is white poverty and challenges for whites as well, the system isn’t systemically stacked against them the way it is for people of color or even for women. For many whites, this leads to a somewhat natural and understandable preference for order and calmness. But this has a dark side. This preference for order and calmness often means that many white folks – even with seemingly good intentions – oppose direct action and protest of injustice. All too often, this only leads to no change. The pot must be stirred, and discomfort is worth the price of change. After all, discomfort can lead to personal growth and a better understanding of the viewpoints of others.

I think of Jesus’ statement “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). This statement stands out from the multitudes which establish his support for nonviolence, call him the prince of peace, and so forth. So what is going on here?

The verse comes from Matthew 10, where Jesus sends out the disciples to go and change the world. They are to announce that the kingdom of heaven is near and to “heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, and drive out demons.” The disciples are to go with minimal possessions, rely on the hospitality of those they meet in their journeys, and are not to judge or be angry at anyone who refuses them kindness or hospitality.  Jesus says they will be like sheep among wolves and should be shrewd but also innocent as doves. They will be brought before the religious and national authorities and will be beaten. And they will even be betrayed by their own family members and by the family members of the friends and allies they make on their journeys. “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another” (Matthew 10:23).

Jesus’ statement about the sword comes in this context of the disciples as a force for good in the world, confronting the evils of humanity and its systems. Everything related to the disciples and their actions is nonviolent. The verses immediately after (Matthew 10:35-39) explain what he means by the sword: he has come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law. He says that a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household, and that anyone who loves their father or mother more than Jesus is not worthy of him. “Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:39). Jesus is saying that his message of love, liberation, and justice is itself very controversial.

In a way, Jesus’ message stirs up violence, but only because it exposes the violence in our hearts, societies, and systems. This is also the cure if only we can face it and stick with it. So what Jesus means is that he is aware that his message divides and can stir up violent reactions, even though it’s absolutely clear that his followers are only to be innocent, peaceful, and kind.

While Martin Luther King, Jr. was in jail for his civil disobedience, he responded to critics who were against his policies of direct action, protest, and outspokenness about injustice. They wanted him to be quiet, to be patient, to let justice work itself out on its own slower pace. Just like Jesus, King responded that he had to speak out and that his message would indeed divide.  This was necessary for goodness to increase.

I think this is part of why King considered himself a Christian. He understood Jesus’ message, applied it to his own day and time, and knew that this was a dangerous course of action. True nonviolence disturbs the status quo and puts a spotlight on injustice, racism, hatred, and nationalism.  For many, it would feel more comfortable to ignore these and to simply accept the system as it is, hoping that change will come.

Jesus said that his message would divide families and that people should choose his message over family allegiance. Consider that today, a parallel to family is race. Ideally, we feel comfortable and safe with our family, and we look a lot like members of our family.  In the same way, many of us often feel more comfortable around people of our own race and look somewhat similar to people of our own race, at least in terms of our skin color. But if Jesus’ message will disturb the comfort and peace of family, Jesus’ message will also disturb the comfort of staying within the perspectives of our own race and shying away from racial justice.  

Monks and Mennonites – my story of “discovering” the Mennonite church

Posted on by

Amish carriage

In the Fall of 2003, I was in the first semester of my senior year studying Engineering at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, California.  It was a crazy busy time, finishing up coursework, doing my senior project, and applying for graduate schools.  I was so eager for the semester to end that at the end of each day, I’d cross off that day on my calendar, hoping and waiting for the relief of Christmas break.

In the spring of 2004 I found out I’d been accepted to graduate school at the North Carolina State University Department of Nuclear Engineering in Raleigh.  They flew me out for an interview and to finalize which professor would be my adviser.  I’d never been to North Carolina before, having only lived in Arizona and California. Flying into the airport, I remember being amazed at how green and lush the landscape was.

My interview at NC State went well, and I decided I’d go there.  I’d previously found the school’s automatic deferral policy online so I knew I’d be able pursue my plans to take a year off to live in monasteries but still have a guaranteed spot at NC State when I returned.  I let them know I’d be deferring, to start in Fall 2005 instead of Fall 2004.  For my year off, I was going to stay 3 months at St. Joseph’s Abbey in Spencer, MA and 6 months at St. Benedict’s Monastery in Snowmass, CO, near the skiing town of Aspen.  I wanted to do this because I had been working so hard at school and wanted to “work” equally as hard to answer some burning religious questions I had and to delve deep into the contemplative prayer and spirituality that the Trappist monks were teaching.  I knew that some of the monks at Snowmass had been involved in monastic interreligious dialog and that the famous Trappist monk from a generation earlier, Thomas Merton, also recognized the spiritual depth in the deepest forms or manifestations of other religions.

Happy that the interview went so well at NC State, I returned to the airport in Raleigh to fly back to college in California.  I was puzzled when I saw a few people inside the airport who looked to me like they were Amish.  I didn’t know much at all about the Amish then, but I knew they don’t use automobiles, much less airplanes!  I was curious and asked a person nearby, “Who are those people?  Are they Amish??”  The answer I got back was that they are Mennonite.  Huh!  I’d never heard of that – what are Mennonites?  I didn’t look into it any further.

After my 3 months at St. Joseph’s Abbey I went home for Christmas and then went off to Snowmass.  I continued devouring books on religion and spirituality, and one book I came across was part of a series covering the whole panopoly of western spiritual traditions.  The book was Early Anabaptist Spirituality, and it turns out that the Anabaptists are the pre-cursors or ancestors of the Mennonites and Amish.  The term “Mennonite” came from the name of an early Anabaptist leader, Menno Simons.

Coming across this book felt auspicious because I wasn’t sure what sort of religious community or denomination I could belong to after the monasteries.  The monasteries gave me a deep appreciation of the best of Catholicism, but I didn’t think that becoming Catholic was right for me.  One of the other burning questions I’d wanted to explore in the monasteries was that of nonviolence.  After reading the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy (he wrote extensively about religion and was an interfaith pioneer!), Thomas Merton, Walter Wink, Dorothy Day, and taking a harder look at the New Testament I was convinced that nonviolence is at the core of the Gospel and is a deep principle that is the best way to fight and resist evil.  It turns out the Anabaptists also believe that Jesus taught an active nonviolence based on love and overcoming or transforming evil.

The history of the early Anabaptist movement was and is fascinating to me.  They came about at the same time as the Protestant Reformation in the early 1500s.  They were a group of people who thought the Reformation did not go far enough and was not being true to Jesus.  Anabaptists read the Bible together and interpreted it as a community, not being held captive to previous interpretations or dogmas.  They recognized that Jesus taught a very different and very powerful way of life, and that the New Testament was consistent in asserting that Jesus was the clearest revelation of who God is within the Bible, and that the Bible should be interpreted first and foremost through Jesus.

Much of the Reformation was literally violent against Catholicism (and vice versa), with both Catholic and Protestant groups eagerly making alliances with princes and territories to set their religion or denomination up as the law of the land.  The Anabaptists, however, refused to take part in this and saw the Kingdom of God that Jesus taught and lived as being above violence, power struggles, and politics.

The word Anabaptist means “baptized again”, based on the Anabaptist practice of adult baptism.  These folks saw that following Jesus took a deep understanding of not only the Bible but also politics and power – summed up in the phrase “be gentle as doves, wise as serpents.”  The decision to be a disciple of Jesus, made explicit in baptism, could not therefore be made as a baby or even as a young child as the Catholics and Protestants practiced.

Tithing to the Church was also mandatory back then, and infant baptism did two things: ensured that everyone was Christian and therefore had to tithe, and also pushed forward a dangerous narrative of a unified “Christian nation”.  This preempted a more genuine spirituality and understanding of Jesus, and gave church and state elites power over religion.  As a result, Anabaptists were persecuted and killed by both Catholics and Protestants, clearly because of the challenge of their beliefs to Catholic and Protestant power and wealth, not merely because of a disagreement in doctrine.

Due to this persecution and the high cost of discipleship to a nonviolent Jesus, Mennonites took refuge in biblical themes of separation from the world: you are in the world but not of the world (John 17:14,16), “do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2); avoid being polluted by the world (James 1:27).  The history is complicated, but over decades and centuries, the lived experience of being separate from society because of persecution combined with increasingly more literal understandings of these verses combined to create groups of Anabaptists – the Amish and some Mennonites – who live very simply and eschew much of technology and the typical ways of modern culture.  Today, there are a range of Mennonites from those who “look” Amish but use cars and can fly in airplanes (Old Order Mennonites), to Mennonites who integrate into modern society (as the original Anabaptists did) and still value simple living as more of a spiritual value in opposition to excessive materialism.  (Quite a challenge in the United States!)

Another aspect of the Anabaptists that really appealed to me was that they did not reject everything Catholicism had to offer like the rest of the Protestants did.  Many of the early Anabaptist leaders were monks or friars disillusioned with the excesses, fraud, and abuse of the Church but were also well versed in and appreciative of the medieval contemplative or mystic threads of Catholic spirituality.  I liked this because I came to the monasteries to learn about and practice contemplative prayer.  It also made me laugh that I happened to discover the Mennonites in a monastery when many of its early leaders left monasteries to start the movement!  Some might say God has a sense of humor!

Needless to say, when I left the monasteries I became a Mennonite.  I’ve had many wonderful experiences as part of the Raleigh Mennonite Church and later the Manhattan Mennonite Fellowship.  I’m grateful for the unique contributions of the Mennonite church and it’s one part of the (complicated) story of why I consider myself a Mennonite Christian atheist.

Divergent Mennonites?

Posted on by

A dove image often used by Mennonites symbolic of its peacemaking and nonviolent theology superimposed over the Divergent novel book cover. The tie-in to this book occurs at the end of the article 🙂

A number of recent articles from The Mennonite, an online publication of Mennonite Church USA, stoked the embers of my love for Mennonites/Anabaptists and the promise I think the movement holds for a transformative Christianity.  I’ll briefly summarize them here and in the next article share my story of finding the Mennonite Church, including some context about Mennonite beliefs.

A Mennonite woman and teacher in the Kansas public school system was required under state law to certify that she is not taking part in any divestment or boycott activities of Israel (usually done in protest of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians).  She worked with the American Civil Liberties Union to fight this in court, and at the time of the article won a court injunction against it.

A black Mennonite man shared some of his story of finding other people of color at a conference in the predominantly white (and might I add, peculiarly ethnic) Mennonite church, coming to a deeper realization that there is room for people like him in this particular Body of Christ.

Jess King, a Mennonite in Lancaster, PA is running for Congress.  She worked in business and sustainable development to help combat poverty but saw that many systemic and policy issues were instead working to increase poverty.  She was motivated by her faith and its focus on love of neighbor to run for office, also saying she “doesn’t fit neatly into one party” and believes that the country’s “two-party system is ineffective.”

Glen Guyton is the new Executive Director of Mennonite Church USA and also wrote a great article about the future of the Mennonite Church based on the Divergent book trilogy.  In the Divergent series, humanity is facing the task of rebuilding after some major un-named catastrophe and has split into five factions each based on a wholesome-sounding character trait.  Yet there is conflict between the factions, and people who manifest multiple traits are labeled “divergent” and dangerous.  Guyton writes that more divergent leaders and less factions are needed for the Mennonite Church. (Amen!)  In my view, Jesus is a shining example of divergence, something the institutional church has failed to grapple with.

Updates on life (including book!) – Part 2

Posted on by

A big part of my motivation for writing is that I really do believe the pen is mightier than the sword. It’s so hard to have deep conversations about complex, difficult, and sensitive topics so I’m just gonna put it all in a book! I know that the book will put me in touch with the right people and give me the platform to engage on issues of science, religion, and spirituality on a level I simply couldn’t otherwise as an engineer.

Previously I posted on my job as a wastewater engineer.  That took up more space than I originally anticipated so I didn’t get to the other things I’ve been up to.

So without further ado:

    1.  I’m working to complete my book proposal package, which you use to woo a literary agent.  The agent helps you tweak your book proposal, and represents it to book publishers to sell. I used this fascinating book about writing book proposals (!) here. 

      Writing it is a bit of an ordeal and I take comfort knowing that other authors struggle with the process too, for example, New Atheist Sam Harris’ blog post How to Get Your Book Published in 6 (Painful) Steps.  The 3 parts of a proposal are:

      1. The proposal section says what your book is about in story or narrative form, why you want to (or have to!) write it, and highlights interesting bits that stand out.  It includes a section on the book’s competition where you describe other related works and how yours is unique or a needed contribution.

      2. A detailed table of contents to give the publisher and agent a sense of the overall book.

      3. A sample chapter, which doesn’t necessarily have to be an actual chapter.  They say it’s often more effective when it’s a compilation of the most important and interesting stuff in your book.  (No pressure!)

    2. I submitted a 2600 word article about Islam to Free Inquiry, an online secular humanist magazine.  I just heard yesterday (3/14) they didn’t accept it, so I’ll be looking for another outlet to send it to.

      But what exactly did I write about?  Much of the discourse on Islam in the West claims to be based in logic and rationality, but is at a shallow level. Rationality needs depth (and even spirituality!) to be effective and help contribute solutions to complex problems.  Accurate storytelling is one angle, and I tell the story of Muhammad and address many common misconceptions about Islam.  I’d be happy to share it individually if you want to read it, just let me know!

    3. I just ended a stint as a young adult leader in the interfaith non-profit Religions for Peace.  I’m incredibly grateful and honored to have been part of this amazing group and organization.  I’ve had the amazing experience of meeting young adults of many different religions from North America and from around the world.  Working with RfP was an outlet for my intense passions for religion and interfaith work, often the only outlet because I’ve been so heavily steeped in science/engineering graduate school and/or jobs these last years.

      With RfP I have been to the 2015 UN climate change talks in Paris; to the global RfP meeting in Vienna; Tunisia to connect with religious young adults who helped bring about their Arab Spring, and various meetings in the US (St. Louis, Chicago, greater New York City metro area).

    4. Finally, I’m on the executive board of a wonderful group called Uplift Syracuse, which has both an issue-based focus and a political focus.The core issue areas Uplift Syracuse is focusing on are:


      1. Addressing the terrible problem of children’s exposure to lead paint in homes.  Uplift is working with a coalition of groups to address this issue, drawing on a successful example from Rochester, NY.

      2. Municipally owned high speed broadband internet service.  Our city of Syracuse could install its own fiber optic internet lines and offer faster and more reliable service.  Revenue would stay in the City, and the City would be better able to attract and retain businesses and young professionals.

      3. Advocating for the replacement of a short segment of I-81 running through downtown Syracuse that has literally outlived its safe lifespan with a community grid solution.

      4. Advocacy for increased Syracuse school district funding in cooperation with the City’s Commissioner of Education.

That’s it for now!  As always, I appreciate your comments and feedback!

Religion as Pearls and Ashes

Posted on by

Finding the truly transformative aspects of religion isn’t this hard, but it does take a significant effort!

We humans have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize parts of our lives: to simultaneously hold conflicting sets of worldviews or perspectives.  This is useful because the world Is a complex place.  We need multiple tools and approaches for coping with life and pursuing wholeness.  But this kind of compartmentalization can be extremely frustrating when it comes to discussing and analyzing the relationship between, say, science and religion.  One example is Francis Collins, an atheist/agnostic turned Christian apologist, head of the National Institutes for Health, and a highly regarded scientist in the human genome project.

Collins is a prolific writer on science and religion, with titles like The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.  But according to his own words, what ultimately resolved his search is that he was hiking and saw a really striking three-part waterfall.  It reminded him of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (God = God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit).  Boom, his searching, wondering, and struggle was done.  He was a Christian.

I’d never knock this story as forming part of someone’s spiritual journey.  I recognize he went through a long process of figuring out what he believes and why.  But if you’re then going to become an apologist and make it your point to argue in the public sphere why Christianity is right (and for him, implicitly why other religions are “wrong”) then that story really doesn’t cut it, especially running with the scientist angle!  I completely sympathize when atheists get flummoxed by such a subjective explanation of religious belief.

Some of my own views on religion align with those of two prominent personalities: Leo Tolstoy (not many seem to know he wrote extensively on religion!), and the American physicist Richard Feynman.  Tolstoy described religions using a metaphor – they are each like a sack containing pearls of infinite worth mixed up with and often hidden by a lot of ashes.  In other words, religion comes with its own baggage: all sorts of corruption, in-fighting, violence in the process of creating doctrine, hypocrisy, and forms of “idolatry” that infiltrate scriptures, such as nationalism, tribalism, and sexism.

My own journey resonates with this.  When I read that Jesus says to “knock and the door shall be opened to you” and “search and you shall find” I think of this metaphor.  It makes sense that there’s a lot of sifting and sorting to do.  There are pearls to find, but it’s an ongoing process, not a quick journey that’s over all at once.  Through a lot of searching over a decade or so (questioning my beliefs, exploring contemplative Christianity, living in a couple of monasteries, learning about other religions, being involved in interfaith groups), I came to see some of the pearls within Christianity, and to understand its limitations and the problem areas: the ashes.

During part of Richard Feynman’s career, he was a professor and mentor of graduate students.  Some of his students struggled the conflicts between their religious Christian upbringing and the science they were learning.  Feynman ultimately came to describe the challenge of the science vs. religion debate as one of being able to distinguish and preserve the wonderful moral teachings and inspiration of religion while being able to challenge specific worldviews or claims about objective, scientific reality that they make.  I think this is an especially important point for prominent atheists to engage in.  I think much more progress will be made extending the conversation to the pearls of religion and the many internal tools and teachings they contain to weed out the good from the bad and point to the dangers of hypocrisy and power.  Many atheists are motivated by a humanist desire to decrease suffering related to religious belief, so this could be a fertile ground of exploration.

I believe Sam Harris, despite my disagreements with him on some topics, is one of these.  I love his metaphor of the Moral Landscape, in which he envisions a 3-D map with many different peaks and valleys, where the peaks correspond to different ways of human flourishing and the valleys correspond to the many ways we can make ourselves and others suffer.  He could contribute to the transformation of religion by focusing more on the peaks of well-being specifically within religious traditions.

As Feynman’s viewpoint alludes to, religion often makes claims about the world or universe that it isn’t qualified to and doesn’t need to make such as the idea that Earth is the center of universe, back in Galileo’s day.  That was (taken to be) an important theological idea then, but come on, it’s not actually essential to Christianity.  Something similar today happens over topics like evolution.

My own experience in the interfaith group Religions for Peace, exposure to monastic interfaith religious dialogue, and love for food has led me to my own metaphor.  Each religion (with exceptions like Scientism) is like a culinary tradition from a nation or region of the world.  Each has many things beautiful, tasty, and wonderful to offer.  While foods are clearly different across the world, they are also the same in many fundamental ways (nutrition, chemistry, aesthetics and creative pursuits, etc) as well.

Each cuisine of the world also has its own types of junk food.  I think the discourse on religion, science, atheism, and ethics will improve as we increasingly recognize that the world’s religions have tremendous and wonderful commonalities, and when we are also keenly aware of and open to talking about their limitations – most especially the ways that they can be and are used (or abused/warped) in ways that cause tremendous pain and suffering.  It’s especially important to have a deep understanding of a religion in order to understand if negative actions or beliefs ascribed to the religion are an integral part of it or are instead a parasite, addition, or perversion of the original teachings and spirit of the religion.

On its own, I recognize that many people will find my food metaphor too simple.  I look forward to getting into more depth on all of this!

As always, I welcome your thoughts and questions!

Love

Posted on by
People featured in this post

People featured in this post: bonus points if you know who they all are!

What is love?
Baby don’t hurt me
Don’t hurt me
No more
– Haddaway, What is love (90’s song)

What is love? In this post I’ll tackle this question drawing from some of the world’s greatest thinkers and movers, and will follow up in the next post with a discussion on the relationship of love and religion.

From Mozi (ca. 400 BC), a contemporary of Confucius:
Where do disorders – the world’s ills – come from? They arise from lack of mutual love. The son loves himself but does not love his father, so he cheats his father for his own gain. The younger brother loves himself but not his brother or his father so he cheats his older brother for his own gain.

Robbers and brigands likewise love their own households, but not the homes of others and so rob these homes for their own benefit. State officers, princes, and rulers make war on other countries because they love their own country but not other countries. They seek to profit their country at the expense of others.

This is what the world calls disorder. This all comes from the lack of mutual love.

The ultimate cause of all disorders in the world is lack of mutual love.

For if everyone were to regard the persons of others as his own person, who would inflict pain and injury on others? If they regarded the homes of others as their own homes, who would rob others’ homes? In that case there would be no brigands or robbers! If the princes loved other countries as their own, who would wage war on other countries? In this case, there would be no more war.1

Paul of Tarsus (ca. 40 ad)
The commandments … are summed up in this one command: Love your neighbor as your self. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Do not take revenge, my dear friends. On the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.2

Leo Tolstoy (ca. 1900):
Some people are able to foresee and point out the path of life along which humanity must move: a new theory of life that will change the whole future conduct of humanity and will be different from all that has been before. In this divine theory of life, humanity does not find the purpose of life in fulfilling his or her own desires (the animal theory of life), or in fulfilling the desires of societies of individuals (whether the family, clan, political party, or nation) but only serves the eternal source of life itself. The motor power of this life is love.

It is natural to love yourself. It is natural to love your immediate family, extended family, friends, social group, and fellow citizens. But this love gets weaker – more dilute – the farther out we go from our self. It is possible, though, to have a love that extends to all of humanity. We all have to discover it for ourselves, but there are some who can help others internalize it and experience the depth, richness, and transformation behind it.3

From Lao Tsu, in the Tao te Ching
In nature the softest overcomes the strongest. There is nothing in the world so weak as water. But nothing can surpass it in attacking the hard and the strong. There is no way to alter it. Hence weakness overcomes strength, softness overcomes hardness. The world knows this but is unable to practice it.4

There are many ways, many paths to this type of love. Yet each path is narrow, is difficult. Not enough people tread this difficult but rewarding path. Those who do are filled with the love, strength, and passion of God. This God is not a being, does not give laws or doctrine, and does not belong to any one religion. Wherever this love exists, there God is. God is love.

 

1 Kurlansky, Mark. Non-violence – The History of a Dangerous Idea
2 Romans 12 and 13 (Bible)
3 Tolstoy, Leo. The Kingdom of God is Within You (with some paraphrasing and summarizing from yours truly)
4 Kurlansky, Mark. Ibid

Father Coyne: Jesuit priest and scientist extraordinaire!

Posted on by

fr_coyneYesterday I was honored and thrilled to meet Father Coyne, a Jesuit priest, Ph.D. in Astronomy specializing in astrophysics, and retired head of the Vatican’s research observatory located at the University of Arizona in my hometown – Tucson, AZ.   (I realized the Tucson connection when I saw he had a 520 area code for his cell phone).  I met him at his residence at Le Moyne College, a Jesuit school right here in Syracuse.

A friend of mine at school told me about a series of lectures on religion at Le Moyne and looking at its website I quickly found Fr. Coyne.  He was on Bill Maher’s movie “Religulous” – one of its few rational religious voices.  He was also interviewed by famous New Atheist Richard Dawkins for a TV show about Darwin, and the full interview is on youtube.  Check it out!

dawkins_coyneFr. Coyne is an ardent and passionate voice for both the (potential) depth of religion and the validity of science, including evolution.  I thoroughly (that’s an understatement!) enjoyed my time with him and I wished we had videotaped our conversation so we could put it on youtube!!  (He did say we might do this another time.)

We talked about a lot of things, but we touched on how earnest many atheists are in their critique of religion and that they have many good points based on ethical and scientific grounds.  We agreed that absent from debates on science and religion are Jesus’ own very anti-establishment and anti-religion views/teachings and his focus on experience and common sense.

We agreed that there is no dualism between the spiritual and the material.  That is, the spiritual is in the material and vice versa.  There’s not separate realms or realities, although it can be useful or inspiring to envision such things.  Here’s my little phrase that sums it up:  “We don’t need the supernatural.  The natural is super enough!”

I tried out a few of my newest thoughts and ideas on him – like my pithy saying above – which were very well-received.  For instance, we talked about faith.  St. Paul says faith is hope in that which is unseen.  For me, that includes the power of love, the depth of the human spirit, and our search for the transcendent or the divine (in a symbolic way but one that can be experienced).  He agreed, and I said I felt a lot of sympathy for those who only know of the word “faith” as belief in doctrine or dogma and criticize it as such.

But along the lines of St. Paul, there’s a huge difference between belief in what’s unseen (we believe in many things that are unseen) and belief in things that scientific evidence is strongly against.

For example, I don’t believe in the virgin birth (of Jesus).

From a scientific perspective it’s just so highly unlikely.  But adding to this, virgin births are  present in the stories and myths of other religions and cultures.  Is Christianity’s virgin birth true while all other cultures’ and religions’ virgin births aren’t?

What I conclude is that virgin births are a very dramatic element that mean “Hey!!  Listen up!!!  This person is very important!!”  And I do believe that Jesus was and is very important.  Hopefully there can be more depth and public discussion of why.  What did he teach?  How is that different from Christianity?

This was just a bit of what we talked about.  It was amazing, though, to talk with someone who thoroughly understood where I was coming from from both a religious and scientific standpoint.  Each of us experience awe, inspiration, and transcendence through both science and religion.

I look forward to getting to know Fr. Coyne more and am amazed and thankful that our paths that unknowingly overlapped for so long in Tucson now “knowingly” overlap in Syracuse, NY of all places!

 

The Man of Steel and the Man of Love

Posted on by

Note: I wrote this in early fall and tried to submit it to the Huffington Post, but to no avail. 

If the flag wasn't enough, the 7-11 behind Superman really makes this patriotic!

If the flag wasn’t enough, the 7-11 behind Superman really makes this patriotic!

This summer’s movie, The Man of Steel, deeply and beautifully focused on Clark Kent’s (Superman’s) struggles and moral development. Christian pastors were invited to free advance screenings and were provided with sermon notes titled “Jesus as the First Superhero”. Was Jesus like an American superhero? Did he endorse violence as a way to fight evil and bring about righteousness?

The Man of Steel and Jesus, the Man of Love, are not the same. Instead of Superman, Jonathan Kent (Clark or Superman’s father) was actually the Jesus figure, and Superman’s task was to deeply learn and embody his father’s spirit.

Accordingly, the Christian Church is like Superman not because it’s the hero that saved the day but because its most fundamental task is to deeply learn, imbibe, and embody Jesus’ spirit. The Superman of this movie did a much better job of it than the Christian Church as a whole.

Clark was different, so he was bullied as a young child. His x-ray vision and super hearing led to panic attacks and he’d run out of class desperately searching for peace from his overwhelming senses. He seemed weak, especially because Jonathan taught him never to fight back. As Clark got older, Jonathan emphasized that how he responded to the hatred, fear, and arrogance of others was his choice and would determine what kind of a man he would grow up to be.

Jonathan was real with Clark about the difficulties of nonviolence. He wanted the bullies to get what was coming to them but knew this was a dangerous path for anyone and especially for Clark. When those with overwhelming power retaliate, it only creates more fear, mistrust, and alienation. Clark would never gain the trust and admiration of humanity this way.

Jesus’ disciples also struggled with issues of violence, retributive justice, and power. They (and their culture) expected the Messiah to be a king who would inflict vengeance upon Israel’s enemies. They wanted Jesus to zap people who failed to show them hospitality and to defend Jesus with the sword. Peter couldn’t bear to have his feet washed by Jesus because he so strongly thought only servants should wash their master’s feet and not vice versa. Jesus rebuked the disciples each time.

Jesus represented a different relationship to power, violence, and status; he likened his way to a narrow gate that few enter but leads to life. The gate that leads to destruction (violence, control, and power over others) is a wide gate that many enter (Matt. 7:13-14).

In the movie, Jonathan risked his life to help others during a tornado. He knew it was dangerous but felt the risk of Clark revealing his powers was too great. Jonathan saved the people but died in the process, teaching Clark what love looks like and that true strength comes from within.

Jesus also seemed to think that his best hope of getting through to the disciples – of showing them once and for all who he was and what he stood for – was to accept his death at the hands of the religious and political authorities. His death would shock them out of their old ways of thinking, making room for a new Spirit to thrive within them. For a few centuries Christianity held on to the spirit of Jesus, represented a radically different way of life based on love, and refused to take part in violence.

Although there’s been a push to equate Jesus and Superman, the movie provides a much stronger case for Jonathan as Jesus, with Superman being similar to Christianity because they share the fundamental task of becoming like Jonathan or Jesus.

Nonviolence and kicking some alien butt
Kryptonians – people from Clark’s planet – arrived at Earth and wanted vengeance on Clark for the past actions of his parents. They broke their promise to spare humanity if Clark turned himself over. Clark, now Superman, fought back and killed the Kryptonian leader with his own hands.

To create the violent plot and justify the massive destruction caused by Superman (his fighting leveled several towns), the Kryptonians had to be portrayed as purely evil, possessing no conscience, and having technology that could quickly and easily wipe out the human race. It reminds me of how war is often framed and justified in public debate…

Superman was nonviolent toward humanity and turned to violence only as a last resort against genocidal invading aliens: a far-fetched occurrence. What would the world be like if Christianity was committed to justice and righteousness based on nonviolence?

Superman’s real strength was reflected in his refusal to retaliate against the arrogance and evil inside humanity. He had imbibed his father’s vision to be a beacon of hope and light. Without this, he could never win the hearts and minds of the whole human race.

Nonviolence and its foundation, radical love, at first make us weak but invite us into the knowledge and experience of a power that gives us strength, passion, purpose, and hope even in the midst of suffering.

Moral training and spiritual practices fuel and nourish us. Deep reflection and contemplation of the life, teaching, and spirit of Jesus is one such practice. Gandhi studied the New Testament daily and was further transformed by Jesus’ love, spirituality, and power despite (or because of?) his rejection of dogmatic Christianity.

Jesus told a parable of two sons that should challenge the traditional dogma of salvation for Christians alone. A father told his two sons to work in his vineyard. The first said yes, but didn’t do it. The second said no, but changed his mind and worked. Jesus used this parable to point out that the religious leaders – those who said the right things and acted righteous – were actually far less righteous than the tax collectors and prostitutes they considered outcasts (Matt. 21:28-32). Gandhi was like the second son because he rejected Christian doctrine but imbibed and lived out the radical love of Jesus.

Jesus also told a parable in which he is the vine and the disciples are the branches drawing life and energy from him. He warns them that if they aren’t truly attached to the vine they “cannot bear fruit” and “cannot do anything” (John 15) – essentially that they would make a mess of the world, as Christianity has often done.

We can still embrace the worldview of a cosmic battle of good versus evil so prevalent in human cultures and religions, but we have to fight in a way that’s pure and increases the goodness in the world. Nonviolence is good, life-giving, and with discipline and creativity it’s practical. In this way, we can all see Jesus as a savior of the world.