Recently, in a dialogue with someone with a Native American tradition, I noticed an aversion to the use of the term “religion” and in its place was the term spirituality. He spoke of a “Native American Spirituality” yet he also talked about “The Great Spirit” and rituals that he performed within the context of his relationship with “The Great Spirit.” When I asked about this term “spirituality” and why he did not use the word- religion– his answer was “religion is about an institution, creeds and laws.”  I came away from the dialogue wondering if the “religious-spirituality” dichotomy was in fact- real or contrived. Is there a difference, in reality, between spirituality and religion?

Religion, I believe is very difficult concept to define. Anyone who has ever taken a Comparative Religion course or a Philosophy of Religion course will testify to is the arduous work of defining “religion” in order to capture all the characteristics or details of actual religions. There are five major dimensions of all religions: experiential, mythical, ethical, ritual and social. And I believe if we are honest with each other- these are also the five dimensions of spirituality. My argument is that religion and spirituality are the same concepts. I realize there is an entire system of thinking known as the recovery model used in various addiction therapies and Alcoholic Anonymous that majors in the dichotomy between religion and spirituality but I believe the dichotomy is an illusion. What “spirituality” advocates dislike about “religion” are its extremes- its fundamentalist absolute tendencies!

So what is religion? I have discovered- since leaving Protestant Fundamentalism- an interesting definition of religion. I do not present this definition as the absolute sine qua non- only as a starting point for further reflection and study. It comes from a 20^th Century Theologian- Paul Tillich who defined religion as the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern. Now this Ultimate Concern can be personal or non-personal, unity or plurality –and in reality since we are finite beings- this ultimate concern- this infinite God is undefinable. Now this brings up an interesting demonic facet that religion like to take- that of defining God too narrowly and making that definition the absolute “truth” which becomes a matter of a rule of membership in the faith community. This is the demonic in religion- making something that is conditional- unconditional. Allow me to give one example. As a Protestant Fundamentalist, I preached the doctrine of the Trinity and woe be to those who denied the Trinity. It was so to speak  the “holy grail!” Yet, I have come to realize that the dogma of the Trinity is only one theory among many theories attempting to describe the indescribable!

I hope this will generate discussion and further reflection.

Thus says the Lord: Maintain justice, and do what is right,
for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed.
² Happy is the mortal who does this, the one who holds it fast,
who keeps the sabbath, not profaning it, and refrains from doing any evil.
³ Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people’; and do not let the eunuch say,
‘I am just a dry tree.’⁴ For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant,
⁵ I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.  ⁶ And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant—⁷ these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. ⁸ Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather others to them besides those already gathered

Unless you are familiar with the Old Testament, I do not think you will be able to grasp how monumental and striking these words are from Trito-Isaiah. This prophet cries out for justice and a liberation of those who in the past have been oppressed. This prophet is emphasizing a maintaining of justice- a “doing justice” and in this particular situation -justice was an opening up of the assembly to those who had previously been denied admission: the eunuchs[1] and foreigners.

The time of this writing was the period of the exile and return to Jerusalem when many foreigners became attracted to the monotheism of Judaism and much intermarriage occurred between non-Judeans and Judeans. Here the Prophet reverses previous laws that either denied admission or limited rights of these two groups of people: the foreigner and the eunuch.

Those specific laws were found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

“No one whose testes are crushed or whose member is cut off shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord”(Deut. 23:2 Jewish Study Bible)

 

I also remember the story of Phineas– who in some circles of Fundamentalism (not all) is still held in high esteem. Phineas was highly praised for his zeal in killing an Israelite who had married a foreigner. This account is found in Number 25. Here I should bring in the idea that this story originates from the Priestly tradition- formulated and written at the time of Ezra. I bring out Ezra’s name because Ezra maintained the strict code against the eunuch and the foreigners-.being allowed admission into the community. Yes, Trito-Isaiah writing and preaching at this same time- wrote in opposition to the ruling leaders of the time- against Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra and Nehemiah and the priests of the time- thought that in order to rebuild Jerusalem- there was a need to return to the literal law and exclusiveness of the past. Trito-Isaiah wrote as a lone prophet and sounding almost unpatriotic- opposes the idea of an exclusive community and pushed for the justice of an inclusive community.

What are some of the lessons that we can learn from this Trito-Isaiah text?

1. Not all of the “God’s” laws are God’s law!
2. Not all of “God’s” laws are good!
3. Not all of “God’s” laws are eternal!
4. This is a question for further discussion:

 What laws are the Church still clinging to today – that are not God’s law and are not good?

In other words: The question can be asked today- in the Spirit of the Prophet- what injustice does the current Church age need to remedy? What group of people does the Assembly need to open its doors to so that the promise of Isaiah can come true- “that the house of Yahweh shall be called a house of prayer for all people.”

 

---

[1] An eunuch- a castrated male

Answer to last Wednesday’s Poem Riddle:

WAKAN TANKA-THE GREAT SPIRIT

CLUES THAT WERE GIVEN:

1. “I am mystery “To the Sioux Indians regarded the sacred as mystery- and as such undefinable.
2. “I am one but many” The Sioux as well as other Indians in the Plains were more pantheistic
3. The last stanza- the plains shaman serve me– was a give away

Every Wednesday, I will post a riddle-poem. I will attempt to start simple and move to the more complex. The riddle is to name the God described in the poem. Try it- by writing in your answer in the comment slot. I will post the answer next Wednesday when I post the next riddle-poem.

 

I am God…name me if you can?

There was a creature of the night- A four footed beast prowling for its prey

She cloaked in thick darkness- A shadowy figure of dual red jewels

Dancing in the black of night-

She spied her scampering pestering prey-Leaped and pawed the puny invader.

Victory rang in the night and she began her procession

Gleaming in delight.

With foe in toll, she placed the booty on her queen’s vanity.

In the morning, came paradoxical screams and praises from the robed queen-

for mus musculus had been caught

by ______       ______________ who now fast asleep-would soon be compensated.

My people crowned me and called me __________.

Reflection on Amos 7:12-15; Psalms 85; Eph.1; Mark 6:7-13

I was reflecting on the passage from the Minor Prophet, Amos and I came away wondering: what would it be like if Amos lived in our time. What would he preach? Would he be expelled just like he was in Bethel? Here is something to think about: the times we are living in right now are similar to the time of 8^th century B.C.E. Israel. Let’s imagine an Amos like prophet appearing in New York City– he is dressed in old shabby jeans, a red flowered shirt and dirty boots. He speaks with a Mexican accent because he is from a small farming village in Mexico. (Remember Amos was from the small village of Tekao in the Southern Kingdom of Judah- those in Bethel where he was sent labeled him a foreigner).

He begins to preach- to “declare the Word of the Lord” on corner of Wall Street. His message is one of a warning because of our great sins. What sins, you ask?  The same sins that Amos leveled against Israel can be declared against us- social sins.  The list includes- much social inequality and social injustice– a tremendous disparity between the rich and the poor, excessive taxation and political/business scandals. (Read Amos chapters 5 & 7).

Would we expel him like Israel did? Did you notice who expelled Amos? It wasn’t a political leader nor the military but a religious leader- the high priest. His name is Amaziah and he is the priest in charge of the Temple at Bethel. It was here that Amos preached most of his sermons. Why? Because the people of God were going through the motions of worshipping the God of the covenant yet these same people disregarded the covenant -by either taking advantage of poorer members of the community or ignoring the oppression of those members. It should be said that a distinctive feature of the covenant was that you could judge the quality of one’s relationship to God to a certain degree by how one related to fellow members of the covenant community.

It is interesting to note that in the Gospel reading (Mark 6), Jesus, in sending out the Church in it’s mission mentions that there will be some who “shall not receive you, nor hear you,” just like they rejected Amos. Yet I am wondering are we in the Church today-standing up for the poor and standing against social injustices like Amos or are we more like “Bethel?”

That is something to think about.

 

 

 

Answer to last Wednesday’s Poem Riddle:

JAHWEH

GOD OF THE HEBREWS

CLUES THAT WERE GIVEN:

1. The phrase “I am” is what this God gave to Moses when asked for his name
2. In the Hebrew Bible, Jahweh created humanity out of dust and divine breath

Every Wednesday, I will post a riddle-poem. I will attempt to start simple and move to the more complex. The riddle is to name the God described in the poem. Try it- by writing in your answer in the comment slot. I will post the answer next Wednesday when I post the next riddle-poem.

 New Riddle:

I am God…name me if you can?

            I am a mystery

I am one but many.

The creator, the healer

My people spend no time describing me

They experience me in everything.

Westerners misunderstand me

The plains shaman serve me

My name is __________        _____________

 

Weapons of War for Peace?

Is this existence…this survival- life? When man appropriates the means

To destroy their very dreams,

By seeds of wrath

Sculptured pain,

Implements of war from man’s vast domain.

“To split the atom,” they said. “A marvelous work and wonder-surely we are entering the millennium!”

And I wondered!                 And they cried:

“We need more! To deter we must deter…We must be capable of killin’ em!”

And more was ordered and more was delivered and more was never enough of

Seeds of wrath,

Sculptured pain,

Implements of war from man’s vast domain.

Will it ever cease-

This theory of weapons of war for peace?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

How many Coffins?

It was cold in the house of God,

Amidst the sobbing cries, trembling hands and blank stares.

Flowers- red, white and blue garnished the sanctuary

And a flag draped the coffin and uniformed figures saluted:

Out of respect, duty and tradition, Yet thankful it wasn’t them lying there.

It was a time of sober reverence, solemn remembrance and stifling temperance.

The man of the cloth dressed in black read the mourning epic, words of soothing consolation.

“Hero”     “No greater love than this- that a man lay down his life for his nation…”

The bronze star and the purple heart and the flag was given to the mother with assurance of a grateful people- the guns blazed in salute.

In the end, dirt covered the coffin of another fallen soldier.

What does it take…For a people to count the cost,

Of a nation on a blood trail…a death feud,   To say-“enough is enough!”

How many coffins- will it take to stir a people to stop its march to hell.

Be quick! Do not delay!        Prophesy poets!

For all is not well-       There is a putrid smell in the air!

There will be no peace-

Until the hearts of the people change and remove the leaders of this war.

 

Answer to last Wednesday’s Poem Riddle:

MARDUK-SUN GOD

OF THE BABYLONIANS

CLUES THAT WERE GIVEN:

1. “BIRTHED FROM EARTH, HER SHOSEN SON”  Marduk’s mother was Ea or earth.
2. “SHIMMERING FROM EAST TO WEST, , GLIMMERING ON THE GREAT RIVER is a reference to the sun- shinning on the Euphrates River…

Every Wednesday, I will post a riddle-poem. I will attempt to start simple and move to the more complex. The riddle is to name the God described in the poem. Try it- by writing in your answer in the comment slot. I will post the answer next Wednesday when I post the next riddle-poem.

I am God…name me if you can?

            I am who am and that’s all that should matter.

Humanity from dust and my breath

\           The pinnacle of my creation and still they done me wrong.

Yet I eagerly met with them-a covenant to keep.

A burning bush and a name cast Moses to his knees

Yes, the hint is there but what is my name?

If you think you have it- put your answer in the comment!

Are “lay Catholics seemingly ignorant” of Catholic social teaching as implied in the article Pope tells bishops to speak out against gay marriage or are Catholics beginning to be cognizant of the fact that scripture, history and science are proving that the current Catholic position is just plain wrong.  Scripture when read and interpreted in the light of its historical and cultural setting does not condemn homosexuality but rape, temple prostitution and child abuse.  According to the writer of Leviticus, homosexuality is no more morally offensive than eating crab or lobster.  Contrary to the Church’s teaching, the institution of marriage going back to recorded human history has not been between one man and one woman.  The point is marriage has always been in a state of evolution- changing for the common good.  Modern psychiatry has invalidated the Catholic Catechism’s assertion that the inclination to homosexuality is an “objective disorder.”  Finally science has shown through various studies that children are not in danger in being raised by gay parents. Matter of fact, there is ample evidence that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents.

Feb 15, 2011

The Most Rev. Richard Pates

Bishop of the Des Moines Diocese

Your Excellency,

The reason I am writing to you is to express my opinion on a “matter which pertains to the good of the Church,” which is my right and duty as a Catholic lay person, according to Catechism (CCC 907).   I am specifically concerned about the decision that  the Iowa Catholic Conference made to push for a Constitution Amendment to ban same sex marriage. Since the document Statement on an Iowa Constitutional Amendment regarding Marriage issued by the Iowa Bishops does not differentiate between marriage and a civil contract/unions, I will not do so either.

I must first comment on your first argument against same sex marriage: “First, the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman goes back to the beginning of recorded human history.”  I was a little surprised to see this argument.  It is so weak. The fact of history reveals otherwise, that the institution of marriage in every major culture – those which we have written records for- has not been the “union of one man and one woman” but polygamy!  I am sure you would agree that it is found throughout the Old Testament. The fact of the matter is that marriage as you state in the document “is a basic human and social institution” but it has not been a stable institution. The truth is that  the institution of marriage has changed, is always in the process of change and the change has been for the good of everyone. That leads me to address another statement that you make in the document: therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.  History has an uncanny way of dispelling myths. Again, the truth is the Church and the State has constantly been changing the basic meaning and structure of marriage. Do we really want to return to the traditional marriage of a community’s legal arrangement in order to pass on property? In this – a male acquires a female (in the sense of owning and having sovereignty over)  for the sake of reproducing other males who would then inherit property? Do we really want to return to the Roman law- the doctrine of paterfamilias- puissance paternelle , the authority of the father over his wife and children was absolute-even to the point of death?  Do we really want to return to the injustice of marriage being a legal economic contract equivalent to slavery for woman? Do we really want to return to say 1850 in Iowa when the State and Church both denied marriage between black and white couples? Doesn’t that touch the basic meaning and structure of marriage?

Secondly, you speak of the marriage and the unique contribution to the common good. For example, marriage between a man and a woman supports responsible behavior in the care of children. Children who are raised by a married father and mother have more positive outcomes, including behavioral and educational accomplishments. I am wondering if you have read the study which was published in the Journal of Pediatrics Vol 118 July 2006 which revealed “there is ample evidence that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents…The data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents.”  In other words, the data does not prove that heterosexual households are a superior environment for raising children. And the truth of the matter is most families live outside this so called traditional matrix. According to US census figures, 25% of children are born out of wedlock to single women, mostly young, minority and poor; 50% of marriages end in divorce and married couples with children now make up only 26% of US households. As Professor Mark Strasser of Capital University as pointed out “it is unrealistic to pretend that children can only be successfully reared in an idealized concept of family, the product of nostalgia for a long time past.”

My final argument is an American government principle of democracy not theocracy.  If America is to continue to be a healthy democracy- a melting pot of all kinds of people then we must base our public decisions and laws in our shared values and civil law and not in the teachings of any particular theology. What would be your response if an Islamic majority wanted to institute ‘Sharia” law into the Iowa constitution?

Finally, I urge you to consider that the Catholic Church has a wonderful civil rights history- fighting for the rights of the people.  Matter of fact, in 1948 when a black and white couple in California desired to get married, they could not because of a law denying mixed race couples that right. No one would take their case, not even the ACLU. Who did they turn to? The Catholic Church, which took the case to the California Supreme Court and won and California was the first state of forty which has such laws to remove the law. I urge you to do the same with same sex marriage.

Sincerely Yours,

Edward L. Kelly Jr

Masters of Theology/Franciscan University (Ohio)

How did the simple initial hierophany and the emphasis on relationship turn rapidly to a concentration on dogma? I am still reflecting on that but it appears that at the time I was concerned about certainty of truth. I was overly focused on that one word- TRUTH. And because of that I fell into the trap of the “absolutes” of fundamentalism. If there is one overarching characteristic of fundamentalism, it is the central focus of a mindset that one possesses the absolute truth- and that is the Bible. The Bible was indeed- the answer book containing the answer to every problem that man faces. Since God is an absolute being- his word then is absolute- and since the Bible is God’s word- it is absolute. That was the extent of my logic regarding truth. And we could call “absolutist theology.”  I possessed the certainty of truth because I possessed God’s final arbitrary-unarguable- final word. And this word was without error. James Barr- (I was introduced to his writings in 2006) described this Biblicist mindset in the following words:

“In the Fundamentalist’s mind, the Bible functions as a sort of correlate of Christ…The Bible is a verbalized, ‘inscripturated’ entity, the given forms of words in which God has made himself known…The Bible is thus the supreme tangible sacred reality.”[1]

And when I began to preach in 1980- I believed I was preaching the absolute word of God. I took it extremely serious. In a sense, I believed I was literally -God’s mouthpiece. Sad to admit, arrogance dominated my spirit. What began as a simple relationship with God became an arrogant dominating authoritarian play for control and power. I did not admit it- but there was a sense, that I thought I was God.

By 1983, I was thoroughly entrenched in what became known as Dominion Theology or Christian Reconstructionism. Christian reconstruction is a theocratic ideology that  focuses  on the belief that every Christian  believer is called to bring every aspect of life — economics, law, health, politics — into conformity to God’s law, specifically the Old Testament laws and that that Christians have been called of God to rule in this world. I was particularly enamored with the theology of Rousas Rushdoony and that is where I developed the extreme views on the laws regarding homosexuality. I preached that the only rights that homosexuals had were the right to the gallows.

I am now attempting to make amends for this dark side of my life when I was so hateful towards gays. I pray that gay people will please forgive me for my previous bigotry.

(Note that since 2008, I have been writing and speaking for the right for gays to enjoy the same freedoms that my wife and I enjoy in America- the right to marry.)

(Note category- Letters to right a wrong)

---

[1] Barr, James. (1977)  Fundamentalism. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. P. 36.