Letter to “Bat”, Part One
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Thank you very much for dinner at the Copper Kettle last Thursday. It was really good to see you, and I am genuinely happy for your freedom from mind-altering substances. It’s very enjoyable to have meaningful conversations with others who can relate to these issues from experience.
When I got home, I wrestled with the whole idea that I encouraged toward the end of our meal: continuing our discussion or friendly debate via email about what’s real (and what isn’t) with regard to religion, especially Christianity. In my view, the challenge that is presented in holding such a discussion is that by default we will be focusing on the scant few points we do NOT agree upon, rather than the much more important, meaningful, and practical realities on which we DO agree.
Too Interesting to Ignore
On the other hand, the subject of “religion” (I know you do not like that word, but I am not sure what else to call it - any ideas?) and spirituality are obviously subjects that interest both of us a great deal. Frankly, the role of religion and spirituality (and how they relate or do not relate to reality and truth) is one of my favorite subjects to bat around (to use a lame and obvious baseball pun)!
It seems that both of us have, at one time or another, felt driven to uncover the truth and to find out for ourselves what is “really real.” For me, this particular quest began as a child when I found a book in my parents’ library presenting antiquated arguments against evolution from a Biblical standpoint. (There is now much more to both sides of the evolution debate, and it gets highly technical.)
Open-Mindedness is Crucial
Obviously, one cannot honestly research this subject and expect to get much out of it without a high degree of open-mindedness. It is my intention to remain open-minded and teachable as long as I have the sense and ability to do so, hopefully right up until the moment of my death. This is why I still read books and websites that steadfastly defend the faith, such as Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry , as well as many other books they would find sacrilegious, such as Why Won’t God Heal Amputees.
In my opinion, one must study more than one angle or viewpoint if one is to become truly educated in a given area or discipline. If one seeks to become an expert in American politics, for example, then he must study more than just the opinions, dogma, and ideology of one political party. I believe the same holds true for religious and/or spiritual paths.
What attitude and approach to this discussion are you going to take? Do you want or intend to be open-minded and teachable? Are you willing to look at things objectively, or at least make a good-faith effort to be objective? If not, then I see no reason to continue; we should just go ahead and agree to disagree. After all, it takes a significant emotional investment, a lot of serious thought, and of course, a respectable amount of time, to engage in such a potentially sensitive discussion about religious differences.
Again, I believe that an emphasis on the more important, meaningful, and practical realities on which we DO agree is ultimately more rewarding; but of course, this also leaves many of our questions and curiosities unanswered. Honestly, I hope you DO have the desire to engage in this discussion, because I would like to learn more specific details about why you espouse your current beliefs. There are a number of questions I would like to ask you that I would not feel comfortable asking my family.
Being Right
You said that you know in your heart, unequivocally and without doubt or reservation, that you know the truth, and that is that anyone without Jesus is doomed. The thing is, people of most faiths — the serious ones who are solid in their beliefs and able to defend them in a convincing manner — are equally confident regarding their own beliefs. The more honest and forthright adherents to most spiritual paths feel that same comfort of certainty in their beliefs. Can all of us be correct? Technically, of course not; but in a more important sense, I think we can. (This is hard to put into words; it’s something I examine more closely in another document.) However, any type of fundamentalist belief would appear to be incongruent with an honestly tolerant and respectful view, by the very nature of the definition of fundamentalist.
Being truly objective is not an easy thing for someone raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment. As children we were taught not to question these things. We were bombarded with the threat of hell fire and damnation for questioning the Bible as the authoritative word of God. It takes guts and courage to look into these matters. Furthermore, critical examination of these things is not socially acceptable in this part of the country – especially in our Church of Christ circles, progressive or not. It is no small thing, and it can have consequences.
What If…
I am fully aware that my life would most likely be quite different, had I chosen to overlook my concerns and remain active in the church. I recognize that leaving the church and being honest about the way I feel, and the things I believe or don’t believe in, has contributed to my being viewed as somewhat of a pariah, an outcast, by many. The reasons are obvious, and it amounts to typical human behavior: we all have a tendency to befriend those whose beliefs are similar to our own. It follows that we tend to share our resources with our philosophical cronies – including job opportunities, business transactions, and all other economic activities.
Nevertheless, I cannot profess to believe something when my heart warns me against it, and this has been the case every time I have decided to give Christianity another chance. The church folk with whom I am familiar are for the most part wonderful (as are those in many “opposing” sects), and the feeling of being part of a social group is integral to a fulfilling life. Indeed, there is great comfort in knowing you are a part of a loving community on which you can rely when you are dealt the crushing blows that life unfailingly delivers.
For a while my return to church on numerous occasions has begun to take root, socially speaking. But inevitably comes the sermon delivering the message that I am doomed to an literal, eternal hell unless I profess that Jesus Christ is the son of a living, loving God and that he came to earth, lived as a man without error, was crucified, and then arose three days later. The implication is that all others are wrong and doomed. It saddens me greatly, for I believe the original intent of revealed religion in general was to show us how to live fulfilling and happy lives — not to tell us we must believe any particular supernatural story. I do not believe Jesus intended for us to lead Jesus-centric lives, but rather, to lead love-centric, tolerant, nonjudgmental lives. The two are not the same.
NOTE: Actually, I do believe the statements above regarding Jesus, heaven, and hell. The difference is, I do not believe they are necessarily meant to be taken literally. It is all a matter of interpretation. I have gone into much more detail on this subject in another paper.
I believe with all my heart that what unifies mankind is good, and those things that cause division and strife are not so good. I do not see how this can be reconciled with saying, “Unless you believe the way we believe, then you are doomed.” The latter is the very cause of more human suffering in the history of mankind than anything else, and it continues to this day. Sadly, this will continue to be the fate of mankind until we finally realize on a collective, universal level that intolerant, divisive, “we’re-right-and-you’re-wrong” views are in fact the very root of the problem. I suspect that such attitudes will eventually lead to mankind’s ultimate demise. (A great read in this area is Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.)
One reason I am not far more vocal about my views is a desire not to offend my family any more than I already have; however, I am beginning to realize that stifling myself in this manner does a great deal more personal harm than good, and even produces, feeds, or exacerbates what might otherwise prove to be only minor character flaws. At the risk of ridicule, I will go so far as to say that I feel “called” to try to share a middle path through my writing, and hopefully play some tiny role to help eliminate religious intolerance. This dream of mine will not happen if I retain my fear of what others think, and as a result, I feel as though a significant calling of mine is being wasted. Nevertheless, for this and other reasons, I ask that we maintain some degree of privacy regarding all this, at least for now.
Another reason I do not often bring up this subject is because it tends to be divisive, which is the very thing I seek to avoid. It is difficult to have meaningful conversations with those holding opposing views in these areas without stepping on toes, hurting feelings, and creating resentments.
The answer to the question, “Can’t we all just get along?” should be “Yes,” not “Well, only if you decide to believe in this one particular supernatural event.”
As I told you, in the year 2000, I decided to research my way out of religious confusion. (In a way, it was naïve of me to believe I could research my way out of it, for one thing; it is rather humorous.) I was sick and tired of being unable to make up my mind about it. Quite simply, I felt I could no longer proceed with my life in a state of ignorance regarding the whole “God of the gaps” scenario, along with a lengthy and growing laundry list of other issues. I felt like I’d watched the season finale of a killer show (say, Alias or 24!) which ended with the proverbial cliffhanger. But this particular open-endedness was staring me in the face in real life, and would no longer allow itself to be ignored.
Where to start, though? Religion, spirituality, reality, and truth are such broad, massive, and voluminous subjects, I would have to be even more insane than I already am to believe I could actually take the time or have the patience to study it the way I would like to! Heck, even if I ignored all non-Christian religions and focused only upon all the conflicting versions of Christianity, such a study still seemed too massive for me.
So the logical place for me to begin was with a study of the Bible itself, ignoring how any one subset of Christians might choose (or, perhaps more accurately, be taught or told how) to interpret it. So I delved into a study of the errancy vs. inerrancy debate.
(NOTE: In the last decade, these debates have flourished on the Web and in books. There are already a plethora of responses to virtually every critical question about biblical inconsistencies. The validity of the responses is highly questionable, but that’s beyond the scope of this letter.)
I must admit that when I was a professed Church of Christ-flavored Christian, I felt rather guilty when I started to contemplate the multitude of tough questions that any intelligent, studying, growing, honest Christian will surely eventually ask him/herself. It seemed strange, if not plain wrong, to question the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. There was considerable guilt.
I was soon reminded that Christians are exhorted by the Bible itself to pursue these kinds of studies and to be ready to explain the basis of their faith. Examples:
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid. (Proverbs 12:1)
…And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But you must do this in a gentle and respectful way. Keep your conscience clear. Then if people speak evil against you, they will be ashamed when they see what a good life you live because you belong to Christ. (I Peter 3:15b-16)
Dearly loved friends, I had been eagerly planning to write you about the salvation we all share. But now I find I must write about something else, urging you to defend the truth of the Good News (contend for the faith). (Jude 3)
Do not scoff at prophecies, but test everything that is said. (I Thessalonians 5:20-21a)
After three months of study, I could no longer ignore the discrepancies. Frankly, having been raised in the church and never before having the courage to objectively consider these things, it was shocking. In another way, it was also a huge relief; I was truly sick and tired of bouncing back and forth between belief and doubt. Much further study of other religious and spiritual paths seemed to fully support my new point of view. The study continues to this day, and I hope I never stop studying these things.
If Christianity posed merely a handful of perplexing errors and/or inconsistencies, I might be willing and able to overlook them. But the truth is that fundamentalist Christianity poses a truckload of such issues.
I have already written a summary of this so-called “errancy vs. inerrancy” argument, but my document addresses only a few of them – basically, some of the ones that bothered me most. Here are some lists of errors and inconsistencies in the Bible that provide more coverage:
This Cannot Be Resolved Through Discussion and Debate
One thing I finally came to realize through experience is the ultimate futility of religious debates. There is no such thing as proof for any argument about supernatural events. In other words, religious beliefs are beyond the scope of rational discourse.
For this reason, in the end it is all a matter of personal choice. You will believe what you decide to believe, regardless of anything else – including logic and reason.
This is why I have toned down the intensity of my research and ceased to initiate serious discussions on the subject. In my experience, these kinds of religious exchanges always end in one of these ways:
- Agree to disagree (the best case scenario, short of one person “converting” the other)
- Someone being too offended or frustrated to continue
- Increased resentment toward the other person, or worse
OK, that is it for now! Happy trails.
Stephen
Glossary
Effective communication that is relatively free of misunderstanding and misinterpretation requires the participants to be straightforward in the language used, and as such, it is very important to define certain terms on the front end. The purpose of this glossary is to ensure we are assigning the same meaning to the terms we are using.
I believe that a large percentage of what people call disagreement is more accurately described as miscommunication, and that is what I want to avoid in our discussion. The question, Do you believe in God? is a great example. If someone from Lipscomb or Brentwood Hills asks me that, they are most likely inquiring as to whether I believe in the deities as they are described in the Bible. If my definition of God is “the non-anthropomorphic ultimate cause”, then then my answer is devoid of meaning, whether it is yes or no — unless the word God is defined before the question is asked.
What follows are not necessarily Webster’s definitions; rather, these clarifications describe what I mean when I use these terms.
Fundamentalist
Here, I am referring to a Protestant fundamentalist: one who stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming; technically, a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism.
In more casual language, when I use the word “fundamentalist” or “fundie” for short, I am talking about one who takes a literal view of the Bible and/or believes that Christianity is the only path to enlightenment or heaven, and that all others are wrong and/or doomed.
God
the ultimate, original cause, whatever it might be
Bible God
the God(s) described in the Bible
Filed under: God, Religion on January 26th, 2009 | No Comments »
For those of you who honestly feel deep down that AA is not the specific answer for you, I would strongly encourage you to check out this excellent U.K. article; see excerpt below.
She smiled and raised her eyes to see a leaf outlined against the blue background of the sky, fluttering in the breeze, as if signaling to her. Looking intensely at this leaf, she saw in it the presence of the sun. Indeed, without sunlight and warmth, this leaf could not exist. This exists because of that, and that exists because of this. At the same time, she saw the presence of the clouds in this leaf. Without clouds, no rain; and without rain, no tree. With this same intensity, she saw the Earth in this leaf, and saw that it also contained space, time, and mind. Its very essence was a wonder and a miracle. . .
Seeing this, she saw that her being, too, had no origin. Like the leaf, she simply manifested through a temporary form, which had its origin in time. Yet neither she nor the leaf had ever been born, and hence they could never die. In this realization, all concepts of birth, death, appearance, and disappearance dissolved. Her own true nature, as well as that of the leaf, revealed itself directly. Then she saw how the how the existence of one phenomenon makes all the other phenomena possible, through interdependence. One single manifestation contains all others. In truth, they are all one. . . 
Welcome to Recovery Retreat Weekend’s home page! In unprecedented fashion, on April 24-26, 2009, recovering people from ALL 12-step fellowships are invited to come together to share their experience, strength and hope with one another at one of Nashville’s great parks!
Finding the help we need along the road to recovery can be expensive, time consuming, and rather confusing. For years now, I have considered how one might devote a concentrated amount of time to his/her recovery without spending thousands of dollars and having to leave home or work for an extended period of time. This line of thinking eventually gave birth to the idea of a Recovery Retreat Weekend.
Ever since becoming enamored with A.A. in the early 90s (especially after really getting into AA circa 2001), I have thought of Bill W. as quite an interesting fellow.
Personally, Wilson had a lifelong attraction towards mysticism and junk religion. He was drawn — by its ritualism, not its theology — to Catholicism, and seriously contemplated converting. Later in life, Bill W. flirted with Gerald Heard’s and Aldous Huxley’s West Coast Vedanta and took LSD with the two trippy gurus. Bill was consistently a spiritualist, going through life with AA’s Big Book in one hand and a Ouija board in the other. In the basement, Bill W. had a “Spook Room” where he would communicate with the dead. (Source: My Name Is Bill: Bill Wilson–His Life and the Creation of Alcoholics Anonymous, by Susan Cheever)
Cheever’s portrait of Wilson is generally reverent, although she parts company with those who, as she says, see him as a man “chosen by God to carry a message.” In the second half of her book, Cheever goes further and pastes a donkey tail or two on the minor “god” Bill Wilson. Despite his victory over alcohol, Wilson retained his addictive personality and compulsive traits. He chain-smoked himself to death, for one thing. Reportedly, even on his deathbed, Bill W. puffed away as he slowly suffocated. Although he supposedly drank no alcohol for the last thirty-seven years of his life, he always craved it. Those who were around Bill in his last moments know that as he lay dying, he repeatedly requested whiskey; but this request was steadfastly denied by his minions. (Source: My Name Is Bill: Bill Wilson–His Life and the Creation of Alcoholics Anonymous, by Susan Cheever)
Bill loved LSD. He urged everyone he knew to try it, including Lois, his secretary, Nell Wing, his friend Dr. Jack Norris, the Reverend Sam Shoemaker, and even Father Ed Dowling! He even thought his own mother might benefit. (Source: My Name Is Bill; Bill Wilson — His Life and the Creation of Alcoholics Anonymous, by Susan Cheever, page 241.)Also see Francis Hartigan, Bill W.: A Biography of Alcoholics Anonymous Cofounder Bill Wilson, pages 176 to 179:
It is hard to appreciate today the enthusiasm with which LSD experimentation was initially greeted. Aldous Huxley wrote Father Thomas Merton that LSD might even be the SOMA he had written about in his futuristic novel, Brave New World, and that it was deserving of the most serious and thorough scientific research. Sam Shoemaker wrote to Bill about the wholehearted endorsement of LSD experimentation by an Episcopal bishop, and Wilson wrote to Carl Jung, praising the results obtained with LSD and recommending it as a validation of Jung’s spiritual work. (Word was received of Jung’s death, and the letter was never sent.)
Here are fifteen quotes worth reading and remembering; they are from various spiritual teachers, across diverse faiths.
My March 2009 copy of