Religion & Change

Q: Are religions always changing? To what extent are religions always changing and WHY do they change? Is the Christianity of today the same as the Christianity of 500 years ago-- or does religion change so much according to each age that in some respects it is a different religion?
---
Though it seems that religion is forever changing and evolving with the rest of human culture, it seems to me that there are times when this process occurs very slowly and others when a combination of current events and the right leadership leads to rapid and far-reaching changes (the Diaspora and Reformation being only two examples that readily spring to mind).
I would have to agree that the Christian religion of 500 years ago differs in many significant ways from that which is most commonly practiced today. With a copy of the printed Bible available to virtually anyone interested in reading it, direct access to the accepted word of God is no longer solely in the hands of an elite clergy. Modern science has dispelled many of the long-held theories and superstitions to which our spiritual ancestors clung so dearly. Newspaper, radio, television and other media have bought the customs and beliefs of various foreign cultures within our grasp, bridging the gap between Christians and practitioners of other faiths long grouped under the collective label of heathen or pagan.
That said, I think the basic underlying truths beneath the metaphors attached to our various religions (and even denominations) remain basic and unchanged.
In order for the human mind to grasp the idea of an ultimate power or superior being, it is necessary to illustrate these things in a language we can all understand. As human society evolves, so too must our stories.

Lutherans Recommend Tolerance on Gay Policy

January 14, 2005
By Neela Banerjee

A task force of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
recommended yesterday that it retain its policy against
blessing same-sex unions and ordaining gays, but suggested
that sanctions could be avoided for pastors and
congregations that chose to do so.

The sixth-largest Christian denomination, with five million
members in the United States and Caribbean, the Lutheran
Church is attempting to resolve what the task force called
a "deep, pervasive" disagreement about the role and
treatment of gay men and lesbians.

The task force, comprising 14 clergy members and lay people
who worked for three years on these issues, recommended
that the church consider not enforcing sanctions against
those who acted outside the policy. Those who defy church
policies now face a range of disciplinary actions. The
approach would allow those who agree and disagree with the
policy to stay within the church, the group said.

"I think this is about letting people be responsible to
human conscience, rather than a capricious decision to let
people do what they want to do," said the Rev. Margaret G.
Payne, bishop of the church's New England Synod and the
chairwoman of the task force.

The recommendations are expected to draw comment from
churches and regional synods. The church's national
assembly will address any changes to the policy on
homosexuality at its meeting in Orlando, Fla., in August.

Some clergy members said that by giving local churches and
synods wiggle room, the task force had found a way to
preserve the unity of the church.

"The task force didn't want legislation: that would have
created a win-lose situation," said the Rev. Dr. Philip D.
W. Krey, president of the Lutheran Theological Seminary in
Philadelphia. "They wanted to legitimize both sides of the
issue. This allows each side to be conscientious objectors,
allows them to legitimately disagree and act on it and not
be disciplined for it."

But Word Alone, a biblically orthodox Lutheran group,
sharply criticized the recommendations as an attempt to
hoodwink parishioners into believing that policies remained
unchanging despite the fact that sanctions may not be
enforced.

Lutherans Concerned, a group that seeks greater acceptance
of gays in the church, contended that the recommendations
did not go far enough to dispel the punitive atmosphere
around issues of homosexuality.

"We were dismayed and deeply saddened by the
recommendations because we felt they perpetuate a system of
selective discrimination of gays and lesbians in the
Lutheran church," said Emily Eastwood, the group's
executive director.

The Lutheran Church's efforts to negotiate a compromise
come at a time when other mainline Protestant denominations
have been roiled by disputes over the acceptance of gay
clergy members. Recently, the United Methodist Church
defrocked a minister in Pennsylvania who had admitted to
being in a long-term lesbian relationship. She is appealing
the decision.

The Episcopal Church USA is also wrestling with the issue
of homosexuality. The Episcopal bishops met in Salt Lake
City on Wednesday and Thursday to discuss how to respond to
what is known as the Windsor Report. It was produced last
fall by an international committee of church leaders trying
to reconcile the conflict over homosexuality in the
worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church
is the American affiliate.

The rift deepened in 2003 when the Episcopal Church
ordained an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire, and several
church provinces in Africa, Asia and Latin America
threatened to break ties with the Americans.

The Windsor Report called on the Episcopal Church to
declare a "moratorium" on ordaining bishops living in gay
relationships and to halt public "rites of blessing" for
same-sex unions. The American bishops said yesterday that
they did not have enough time in Utah to reach agreement on
those recommendations. However, as the Windsor Report
called for, they issued a statement expressing their
"sincere regret for the pain, the hurt, and the damage
caused to our Anglican bonds by certain actions of our
church."

The presiding bishop, Frank Griswold, said from Salt Lake
City, "We perhaps have not been the most sensitive partners
in terms of taking with full seriousness the integrity of
other provinces and their struggles."
---
As someone who was married in and has been attending an Episcopal church for the past several years, this was an issue a few friends, my wife and I mulled over some time ago.
After giving the topic a little thought, I ultimately decided to take the passive route and mind my own business. Heck, I drink on occasion, smoke too much and sometimes eat past the point of full. Does that somehow indicate that God shouldn't play a significant role in my life?
Just as Christian denominations run the gamut from Catholic to Pentecostal, Presbyterian to Greek Orthodox, so too should their individual congregations be allowed to adapt to the spiritual needs of their communities.
Where love and/or vice are concerned, I am reminded of the old saw, "Let him without sin cast the first stone," or "Judge not, lest you be judged."
Not that I necessarily consider homosexuality a sin deserving of judgment, of course, but you get the idea.
Whether an individual is coming to the church as a teacher or a student, why should fellow Christians suffer the loss of her example purely on the basis of what might go on after dinner?
Like it or not, homosexuality and the clergy have a long-lasting relationship. As opposed to, say, secret pedophilia, a little honest testimony of legal non-conformity should have place in someone's pew.

Good & Evil

Q: Is there more evil (and misery) than good (and happiness) in the world?
---
A: At any given time, I'm given to think that it might well be the case that there is more evil than good in the world. That said, it's also my sincere belief that all things exist in a state of equilibrium, that they work against each other to achieve a natural balance. This seems to be a prevalent theme in many different religious traditions, and try as I might I can't seem to find fault with it.
---
Q: How important is the problem of evil to religion generally? Is it a fundamental problem that all religious traditions have to deal with -- and if so, why? Consider this question in terms of Geertz's definition of religion.
---
I believe the problem of evil in the world is an important part of religion in a general sense, whether one's beliefs fall into tribal, cosmological or transcendental categories.
Whereas tribal cultures may see the interaction between good and evil in the form of a predator's stalking and killing of its prey and classical cultures a set of myths pitting gods against monsters, the transcendentalist can attest in very vivid ways to the ongoing persecution of man by man.
Though the label and circumstances may chance, evil remains a frightening but necessary element in the circle of life. To paraphrase the Tao Te Ching, "What is a good man but a bad man's teacher? What is a bad man but a good man's job?"

Apocalyspe (Almost) Now

November 24, 2004
By Nicholas D. Kristof

If America's secular liberals think they have it rough now,
just wait till the Second Coming.

The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for
adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning
to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian.
The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with
many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting
fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . .
they tumbled in, howling and screeching."

Gosh, what an uplifting scene!

If Saudi Arabians wrote an
Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand
that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We
should hold ourselves to the same standard.

Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the co-authors of the series,
have both e-mailed me (after I wrote about the "Left
Behind" series in July) to protest that their books do not
"celebrate" the slaughter of non-Christians but simply
present the painful reality of Scripture.

"We can't read it some other way just because it sounds
exclusivistic and not currently politically correct," Mr.
Jenkins said in an e-mail. "That's our crucible, an
offensive and divisive message in an age of plurality and
tolerance."

Silly me. I'd forgotten the passage in the Bible about how
Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to
Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren't
born-again Christians.

I accept that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. LaHaye are sincere. (They
base their conclusions on John 3.) But I've sat down in
Pakistani and Iraqi mosques with Muslim fundamentalists,
and they offered the same defense: they're just applying
God's word.

Now, I've often written that blue staters should be less
snooty toward fundamentalist Christians, and I realize that
this column will seem pretty snooty. But if I praise the
good work of evangelicals - like their superb relief
efforts in Darfur - I'll also condemn what I perceive as
bigotry. A dialogue about faith must move past taboos and
discuss differences bluntly. That's what blue staters and
red staters need to do about religion and the "Left Behind"
books.

For starters, it's worth pointing out that those predicting
an apocalypse have a long and lousy record. In America,
tens of thousands of followers of William Miller waited
eagerly for Jesus to reappear on Oct. 22, 1844. Some of
these Millerites had given away all their belongings, and
the no-show was called the Great Disappointment.

In more recent times, the best-selling nonfiction book of
the 1970's was Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth,"
selling 18 million copies worldwide with its predictions of
a Second Coming. Then, one of the hottest best sellers in
1988 was a booklet called "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will
Be in 1988." Oops.

Being wrong has rarely been so lucrative.

Now we have the
hugely profitable "Left Behind" financial empire, whose Web
site flatly says that the authors "think this generation
will witness the end of history." The site sells every
"Left Behind" spinoff imaginable, including screen savers,
regular prophecies sent to your mobile phone, children's
versions of the books, audiobooks, graphic novels, videos,
calendars, music and a $6.50-a-month prophesy club. This
isn't religion, this is brand management.

If Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins honestly believe that the end
of the world may be imminent, why not waive royalties? Why
don't they use the millions of dollars in profits to help
the poor - and increase their own chances of getting into
heaven?

Mr. Jenkins told me that he gives 20 to 40 percent of his
income to charity, and that's commendable. But there are
millions more where that came from. Mr. LaHaye and Mr.
Jenkins might spend less time puzzling over obscure
passages in the Book of Revelation and more time with the
straightforward language of Matthew 6:19, "Do not store up
for yourselves treasures on earth." Or Matthew 19:21, where
Jesus advises a rich man: "Sell your possessions and give
the money to the poor. . . . It will be hard for a rich
person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

So I challenge the authors to a bet: if the events of the
Apocalypse arrive in the next 10 years, then I'll donate
$500 to the battle against the Antichrist; if it doesn't,
you donate $500 to a charity of my choosing that fights
poverty - and bigotry.

Gentlemen, do we have a deal?

---
At my Baptist mother's urging, I began to read the first book in the Left Behind series some years ago and found it both simplistic and vaguely offensive. I didn't finish the thing, and have since refused her continued efforts to get me to read the remainder of the series.
It would appear that the reactionary, evangelical consumers who made the Left Behind authors so wealthy are in large part the same folks who got our simplistic and vaguely offensive President elected to a second term. It's my hope that these well-meaning sheep will eventually look beyond the fish symbols on their SUVs and WWJD bracelets on their children's wrists and recognize these marketing efforts for what they are: false prophets for profit.

Does it Matter?

Q: Does it matter or not whether or not a religion is true? What does it mean to say that a religion is “true?” Can a religion function as religions do whether or not they are true?
---
A: I think it's very important that a religion's adherents find some kernel of truth among its tenets. Though many if not most of the stories and rituals associated with a certain religion may be viewed simply in terms of elaborate metaphor, the underlying root of the faith must be grounded in something to which worshippers can identify, whether it is the natural world of native religions, the monarch-like gods and goddesses of classical faiths or the "golden rule" of brotherly love and a superior being that forms the basis of so many transcendental beliefs. While outsiders may debate the 'truth' of one specific religion or another, it's imperative, I think, that those who actually practice the religion find something within it that speaks of the supernatural plane, or they wouldn't continue to adhere to it and the faith would cease to function.
---
Q: But isnt it is possible for parctitioners to believe it true without it being true? And if so will religion ufcntion for them in the same way whether or not it is true?
---
A: Message: If we're defining Truth in the scientific sense - that is, that which can be proved by applying scientific method to hard evidence - then I suppose that it's certainly possible for a congregation's beliefs to be totally off the mark, and that they could continue to hold these beliefs indefinitely, regardless of the facts weighed against them.
I guess I was looking at truth more as a subjective notion. ;)

Ritual

Q: What is the nature and purpose of ritual?
---
A: Ritual as defined by Clifford Geertz is a ceremonial performance whose sacred symbols induce conceptions of the order of existence and transform one's sense of reality by blurring the line between real and imagined.
Apart from a rather rambling way of expressing himself, I found his examples of ritual relieving, having expected a far more constipated set of illustrations.
Prior to reading this passage, I too saw ritual chiefly as a type of heavily prescribed hallucinatory theater, a series of motions among metaphorical objects, spoken texts, musical pieces and various ingestions that let lazy believers do their praying for them.
No big fan of the device, I've come to prefer a more free-form, malleable type of worship (or visitation to a headstone, night at the pub or gathering to listen as an attorney friend recites "The Jabberwocky"), where there's more than a snowball's chance of some sort of unscripted, emotional give and take as to the actual nature of God. Anything less smacks of idolatry and posing.

Nature of Religion

Q: What is religion? Do you think it is necessary to believe in God (or a God or gods?) to be religious?
---
A: Somewhat like the author of our reading material, I tend to think of religion as a system of beliefs concerning the greater concept of "ultimate reality." I know of certain individuals whosee this reality as encompassing no more (nor less) than the everyday objects (on the ground or in the sky) that occupy our natural world, and not impart any belief in God or gods on it at all. This is still a form of religion, I think.

Academic Study of Religion

Q: What are the essential features of the “academic” study of religion and how is it different than the study of one’s own religious tradition? Do professions of faith like “Jesus Christ is my personal lord and savior” have any place in the academic study of religion?
---
A: The essential feature of academic study is objectivity. While one's personal beliefs are definitely important and to be respected, academics require that one set aside their own perspective (at least for the short term) in order to explore different approaches to the subject with an open mind.

Learning & Comparing

Q: What is the difference between learning about different religions and comparing them? What should the basis of comparison be?
---

A: While learning requires some thought and effort on the part of the individual to digest and retain the information presented, the act of comparison demands even more: To compare logically and objectively, one needs to understand the key concepts of each religion to the extent that he or she can create sets of attributes shared and others illustrating differences between it and another set of beliefs.