Thus far, we've looked at the first three books of the protestant Christian Bible, which are traditionally attributed to Moses, although scholars have determined that the books were authored by several different contributors over a long period of time. Thus far, the books have largely been about the preservation of Israelite culture, primarily through belief in an external divine being who favors the Jewish people somewhat arbitrarily. Part of the establishment of this religiously rigorous culture involved elaborate sacrifices for various things, essentially giving up something personal to make amends when one acts contrary to the culture's policies. A special group of people were assigned to oversee the religious life of the Jewish people, and these were the Levites, those men descended from Levi, Jacob's third son. More about the Levites in a moment.
Rather than accept the culture-specific deity suggested in the Old Testament, most Christians primarily rely on the story of Jesus and the teachings of the New Testament to bridge the gap. Essentially this reflects the belief that over time, as culture changed and developed, spiritual truth evolved as well. It is no longer necessary to offer elaborate animal sacrifices whenever a person does something wrong, because Jesus eliminated that requirement. It is no longer necessary to adhere to strict dietary guidelines, because Peter had a holy vision. And in some cases, people just assume that the Bible's earlier teachings are invalid because we have grown in our understanding of how the world works. We don't hang twisted sticks by a water trough in order to make livestock be born with curly hair because we know that biology doesn't work that way, and we don't worry about whether a person is "clean" or "unclean" because hygienic and medical practices have become more robust in the thousands of years since these laws were written. What's odd is that many people seem to be just fine with the idea that some "laws" can change with the culture, while other laws are immutable, even though they are all declared with the same authority in the biblical text.
In my own language, I have been suggesting a redefinition of the divine as something within us rather than something apart from us. Rather than eliminating the idea of what people consider divine, to a certain extent I am merely repositioning those qualities in our cosmology. I believe that there is no external intelligence watching, guiding, punishing, and rewarding humanity. The guidance and punishment and reward comes from within us, from a part of ourselves of which we aren't always aware. Psychologists have given different names to this piece of our psyches, but it carries the characteristics of the divine. This part of us does not fear, and therefore it does not deceive. It is the part of us that sees the deep truth about ourselves and the people around us, the vast similarities that lie under the superficial differences. It is the part of us that understands the beauty and value of who we are and seeks to discover that beauty in other people and in the natural world. It is the part of us that creates, whether it is creating works of art, practical solutions to problems, or connections with other people. The divine is within us and it is us, and when we are in tune with it, we realize how little we actually have to do to be at peace with ourselves.
Being at peace with ourselves is important, because all of our experience hinges on whether we are accepting and loving toward ourselves. The beginning of the book of Numbers reflects how the Israelites expected to interact with the people around them. Their god, through Moses, had proclaimed that other nations would fall before them. Other nations were essentially infidels, although the translators of the Christian Bible don't often choose to use that term. The preservation of a pure Israelite culture required the prevention of intermingling, so anyone who wasn't an Israelite was an enemy of the Israelites and their god. Thus when the first census is taken among the Israelite community, they count only the men at least twenty years old who could serve in the army. They didn't need to know how many women or children were in each tribe because the warriors were the ones who would be driving away the non-Israelites. At the time, women and children were essentially property, not fully recognized people.
It's interesting to note that when a command in the Bible is attributed to God, he often seems to adopt the worldview of the people through which he's speaking. Since the men of the day saw women and children as property, God saw no point in counting women and children in the census. There are also plenty of other examples in the previous books and in the books that follow. Wouldn't it have made more sense for God to maintain a sense of the value of all human life, even when the people to whom he was speaking didn't? This is the problem with relying upon any person's declaration of what God wants.
Moses meant well. After all, he wanted to preserve his people and their culture. The authors who wrote the Old Testament meant well. They were striving to keep their culture sacred. They probably actually believed the righteousness of their words. But when a person sets out to control other people's behavior, it is usually more from an inward fear than from any sense of what is true. Moses tapped into some divine guidance from within and sought to impose order on a people who hadn't reached any measure of spiritual awareness. And instead of training people to look within themselves and discover the truth about how to live with one another in a productive and healthy society, Moses and the early Israelite leaders attempted to lock the culture down. Only a select few were allowed to be in touch with the divine, and all the rest – hundreds of thousands of men, plus their women and children – were supposed to be good followers and do what the religious leaders told them to do.
These religious leaders, at the beginning of the book of Numbers and beyond, were the Levites. The Levites were counted differently from the rest of the Israelites, because the Levites were not going to be fighting in any battles. Instead of counting every male of twenty years and older, the Levite census included every male of one month and older. One month out in the world was when a male Levite became a legitimate person according to God. Not at birth. Not at conception. Not at some age of reckoning. One month. Inerrantists and militantly religious anti-abortionists, take note.
We know more now than the Israelites knew. We know more about the natural world, we know more about how individuals behave and why, and we know more about how societies and subcultures function. When someone tells us something intended to sound factual, we know how to check our sources and verify the truth of what we're told. And when someone tells us something spiritual, we know how to test that within ourselves. We are not incapable of thought. We don't need someone else to think for us, but that often seems easier than digging into ourselves and discovering something of value. When you allow someone else to think for you, though, you give up personal power and you make yourself vulnerable to whatever ulterior motives another person may have. Don't just drift along on other people's assertions. At least be aware of your own beliefs. Think for yourself.
The Israelite leaders may have wanted what they thought was best for their society, but that doesn't mean they had the only solution. Many people today are willing to go to war against all manner of things in order to do what they think is best for society, and many people simply want to preserve power. It isn't always easy to tell the difference, but fortunately we don't have to. Here is something few people realize: You cannot be at peace with yourself and at war with other people. When you are at war with other people, you must vigilantly defend yourself against them. And when you are vigilantly defending yourself, you are not really aware of that deep sense of truth, beauty, and creativity. Your focus is outward, at what threats may be coming. When you are peace with yourself, you are aware of the truth, beauty, and creativity within you and you are simultaneously able to recognize those qualities in the people around you. This is the most powerful spiritual position a person can assume.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Rewriting Leviticus, the Little Book of Legalism that No One Really Likes
The book of Leviticus gets its name from the descendants of Levi, who had special religious and political responsibilities among the Israelites. While there are certainly spiritual lessons to be gleaned from the Bible, the book of Leviticus has a very legalistic message that largely has little bearing on modern life. There are a few verses here and there which have merit as sage advice, as we’ll see, but even within the overall context of the Bible, the legalistic approach didn’t work. That’s the whole point of the New Testament, actually.
Which is a point worth mentioning, since there are those apologists who promote the concept of biblical inerrancy and insist on using the Bible as proof of its own veracity. A large portion of the book of Leviticus deals with the appropriate way to handle blood sacrifices: which animals are appropriate for what kind of sacrifice, how the sacrificial animals are to be handled, and how soon it has to be eaten by the priests. If the Bible is absolutely true and without contradiction, then these regulations (from God, mind you) have to be addressed. Most Christians would say that all the business with sacrifices was nullified by Jesus, and that’s all well and good. Except that it means a portion of the inerrant, infallible scripture has been improved upon and rendered obsolete. Which is not to say that the New Testament has it “right” either, but merely to point out an obvious discrepancy.
Another large portion of the book of Leviticus is about cleanliness, as in what kinds of things make a person clean or unclean and what a person must do to regain purity. Among the things that make a person “unclean” are: leprosy, menstruation, having a discharge of any kind below the waist, giving birth (especially giving birth to a girl), touching certain animal carcasses, or eating a creature found dead. Ritual washing after a waiting period is typically enough to cleanse a person from those impurities. Mold is also unclean, and if washing moldy clothing or walls doesn’t get rid of it, a priest can order the moldy object to be destroyed. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. We still have issues with mold in our homes today. Some of the ideas about what makes a person “unclean” reflect a certain level of ignorance within the culture, however.
Of particular interest are the regulations about what can be eaten. Orthodox Jews today still follow many of the prescribed dietary laws of Leviticus, if not all of them. Americans will be disappointed to learn that fat is prohibited, along with pork, rabbit, shrimp, monitor lizards, and “flying insects that go about on four legs.” The laws even go so far as to dictate something of a “resting period” for fields, years in which nothing is harvested so that the land will continue to be bountiful. That part’s not actually a bad idea. Most people wouldn’t have a problem giving up bats and weasels from their diet, although they may not be keen on adding grasshoppers to the menu. The biggest problem with this whole topic (aside from the idea that what a person eats can make them innately impure) is once again with regard to the issue of inerrancy.
In the New Testament, it is proclaimed that all food is clean. Peter reportedly had a vision about it, and Paul wrote explicitly that all food is clean and people should stop getting hung up on such insignificant issues. I’ll just come out and say that I agree with this point of view. It bears noting, however, that the same Bible that declares all food to be clean also declares that, according to God, eating some things will make you unclean and could get you kicked out of the community of chosen people. Both statements cannot be true. And if God is infallible, then how can he have changed his mind on the subject? Since the Bible obviously holds contradictory information, it doesn’t make sense to cling to the concept of a completely inerrant body of scripture. And, truth be told, most self-proclaimed Christians use a certain amount of personal discernment and judgment about such things anyway.
The last big topic in Leviticus is sexual impurity. We don’t really need divine guidance to tell us that we shouldn’t sleep with our close relatives, but it’s understandable given what we know about Abraham’s family tree that this was important information for the Israelites to clarify. And it is clarified in great detail. It is spelled out exactly with whom (and what) a person should not be having sexual relations. Punishments for disobedience range from being ostracized or childless (which their god could obviously determine), to being burned or stoned to death. If nothing else, it certainly offers some insight into how the Israelites were tempted to pass the time as they were wandering in the wilderness.
Leviticus also records some very wise advice, though. For instance, it recounts the commandments about not stealing from each other, not deceiving one another, and not lying about people. It commands employers to deal with their workers honestly and justly, and it instructs people not to hold grudges. One of my favorite lines urges people to confront people directly and earnestly instead of sugar-coating things or just standing by and watching someone’s unhealthy behavior. In fact, it is here that the Bible first admonishes, “love your neighbor as yourself.” It’s a shame that these tidbits of wisdom are scattered in and amongst rules about not trimming the sides of your beard. It can be easy to lose sight of what’s important when confronted with the legalism of exactly how a purification sacrifice has to be done and exactly which of your family members you can’t sleep with.
But it isn’t all threats of punishment from on high. There is a short passage in which God expresses what the reward will be for following all of the laws. He’ll send rain to nourish the earth, and he’ll make their harvests plentiful. He’ll make the land peaceful, eradicating all the wild beasts and keeping invaders out. In fact, he’ll make the enemies of the Israelites fall by the sword before them. He’ll increase the Israelites in number, and he won’t hate them. If they just do everything properly.
These sorts of promises seem somewhat problematic. How many people have to do things right in order for the harvest to be plentiful? If it doesn’t rain, how do we know whose fault it is? And if it does rain, does that mean that we’ve been perfect? If our numbers increase, does that mean we’ve done everything right? Or right enough, at least? Or is it only the actual number of Jews that we should be keeping track of? While there are some people who still believe that natural cycles are a direct measure of God’s satisfaction with humanity, most people understand that weather patterns are not based on whether my neighbor eats fat or sleeps with his aunt. The abundance of our food supply depends on a lot of factors, but none of those factors has to do with whether we have properly put our community’s sins into a goat and set it free in the wilderness.
The book of Leviticus reminds us how ludicrous we can be sometimes when we start trying to control every detail and ensure perfection in how we orchestrate our lives. For those who are Christian, the book shows the need for a savior, since it would be impossible for anyone to do everything precisely according to the law. From another standpoint, perhaps it is worth looking at the few rays of insight that shine through the legalism. Which basically boil down to one thing. Respect people. Just respect other people. Not for any particular reason. Just because they are human beings. We don’t need magical rituals to purify us, and we don’t need to stone people or burn them when they make mistakes. We have done and will do some things that we’re not proud of. We’re all in the same boat as far as that goes. If we could just cultivate a little respect for other people, we might eventually even be able to make a few more laws obsolete.
So, the book of Leviticus rewritten? Respect people. All people. And if you fail to do so, forgive yourself and go back to respecting people again.
Which is a point worth mentioning, since there are those apologists who promote the concept of biblical inerrancy and insist on using the Bible as proof of its own veracity. A large portion of the book of Leviticus deals with the appropriate way to handle blood sacrifices: which animals are appropriate for what kind of sacrifice, how the sacrificial animals are to be handled, and how soon it has to be eaten by the priests. If the Bible is absolutely true and without contradiction, then these regulations (from God, mind you) have to be addressed. Most Christians would say that all the business with sacrifices was nullified by Jesus, and that’s all well and good. Except that it means a portion of the inerrant, infallible scripture has been improved upon and rendered obsolete. Which is not to say that the New Testament has it “right” either, but merely to point out an obvious discrepancy.
Another large portion of the book of Leviticus is about cleanliness, as in what kinds of things make a person clean or unclean and what a person must do to regain purity. Among the things that make a person “unclean” are: leprosy, menstruation, having a discharge of any kind below the waist, giving birth (especially giving birth to a girl), touching certain animal carcasses, or eating a creature found dead. Ritual washing after a waiting period is typically enough to cleanse a person from those impurities. Mold is also unclean, and if washing moldy clothing or walls doesn’t get rid of it, a priest can order the moldy object to be destroyed. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. We still have issues with mold in our homes today. Some of the ideas about what makes a person “unclean” reflect a certain level of ignorance within the culture, however.
Of particular interest are the regulations about what can be eaten. Orthodox Jews today still follow many of the prescribed dietary laws of Leviticus, if not all of them. Americans will be disappointed to learn that fat is prohibited, along with pork, rabbit, shrimp, monitor lizards, and “flying insects that go about on four legs.” The laws even go so far as to dictate something of a “resting period” for fields, years in which nothing is harvested so that the land will continue to be bountiful. That part’s not actually a bad idea. Most people wouldn’t have a problem giving up bats and weasels from their diet, although they may not be keen on adding grasshoppers to the menu. The biggest problem with this whole topic (aside from the idea that what a person eats can make them innately impure) is once again with regard to the issue of inerrancy.
In the New Testament, it is proclaimed that all food is clean. Peter reportedly had a vision about it, and Paul wrote explicitly that all food is clean and people should stop getting hung up on such insignificant issues. I’ll just come out and say that I agree with this point of view. It bears noting, however, that the same Bible that declares all food to be clean also declares that, according to God, eating some things will make you unclean and could get you kicked out of the community of chosen people. Both statements cannot be true. And if God is infallible, then how can he have changed his mind on the subject? Since the Bible obviously holds contradictory information, it doesn’t make sense to cling to the concept of a completely inerrant body of scripture. And, truth be told, most self-proclaimed Christians use a certain amount of personal discernment and judgment about such things anyway.
The last big topic in Leviticus is sexual impurity. We don’t really need divine guidance to tell us that we shouldn’t sleep with our close relatives, but it’s understandable given what we know about Abraham’s family tree that this was important information for the Israelites to clarify. And it is clarified in great detail. It is spelled out exactly with whom (and what) a person should not be having sexual relations. Punishments for disobedience range from being ostracized or childless (which their god could obviously determine), to being burned or stoned to death. If nothing else, it certainly offers some insight into how the Israelites were tempted to pass the time as they were wandering in the wilderness.
Leviticus also records some very wise advice, though. For instance, it recounts the commandments about not stealing from each other, not deceiving one another, and not lying about people. It commands employers to deal with their workers honestly and justly, and it instructs people not to hold grudges. One of my favorite lines urges people to confront people directly and earnestly instead of sugar-coating things or just standing by and watching someone’s unhealthy behavior. In fact, it is here that the Bible first admonishes, “love your neighbor as yourself.” It’s a shame that these tidbits of wisdom are scattered in and amongst rules about not trimming the sides of your beard. It can be easy to lose sight of what’s important when confronted with the legalism of exactly how a purification sacrifice has to be done and exactly which of your family members you can’t sleep with.
But it isn’t all threats of punishment from on high. There is a short passage in which God expresses what the reward will be for following all of the laws. He’ll send rain to nourish the earth, and he’ll make their harvests plentiful. He’ll make the land peaceful, eradicating all the wild beasts and keeping invaders out. In fact, he’ll make the enemies of the Israelites fall by the sword before them. He’ll increase the Israelites in number, and he won’t hate them. If they just do everything properly.
These sorts of promises seem somewhat problematic. How many people have to do things right in order for the harvest to be plentiful? If it doesn’t rain, how do we know whose fault it is? And if it does rain, does that mean that we’ve been perfect? If our numbers increase, does that mean we’ve done everything right? Or right enough, at least? Or is it only the actual number of Jews that we should be keeping track of? While there are some people who still believe that natural cycles are a direct measure of God’s satisfaction with humanity, most people understand that weather patterns are not based on whether my neighbor eats fat or sleeps with his aunt. The abundance of our food supply depends on a lot of factors, but none of those factors has to do with whether we have properly put our community’s sins into a goat and set it free in the wilderness.
The book of Leviticus reminds us how ludicrous we can be sometimes when we start trying to control every detail and ensure perfection in how we orchestrate our lives. For those who are Christian, the book shows the need for a savior, since it would be impossible for anyone to do everything precisely according to the law. From another standpoint, perhaps it is worth looking at the few rays of insight that shine through the legalism. Which basically boil down to one thing. Respect people. Just respect other people. Not for any particular reason. Just because they are human beings. We don’t need magical rituals to purify us, and we don’t need to stone people or burn them when they make mistakes. We have done and will do some things that we’re not proud of. We’re all in the same boat as far as that goes. If we could just cultivate a little respect for other people, we might eventually even be able to make a few more laws obsolete.
So, the book of Leviticus rewritten? Respect people. All people. And if you fail to do so, forgive yourself and go back to respecting people again.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Being Chosen: The Incompatibility of Predestination and Free Will
The remainder of the book of Exodus (chapters 35 through 40) goes into meticulous detail about the construction of the tabernacle and the lampstand and the container for the stone tablets God rewrote for Moses -- everything that the Israelites considered necessary to create a sacred place where sacrifices could be offered and worship could take place. Since we've already discussed the importance of consciously choosing what we are going to make "sacred" in our lives, these chapters do not offer much more spiritual meat. Of course, they would be great resources if you happen to have some gemstones and precious metals lying around and you're looking for a project.
There is one short paragraph at the end of Exodus 34 in which Moses is described as glowing after he has been in the presence of the divine. It may be hard to imagine what that looked like, since no one these days seems to get close enough to God to come away from the experience with radiation poisoning, but there are people who visibly exude authority, power, even spiritual depth. Some of this may be good acting, but some people genuinely "shine" when they walk into a room. They attract attention because of the intensity of their presence. It's much easier to imagine Moses radiating an intimidating sense of authority and power, even spiritual understanding that surpassed the average Israelite. After all, Moses was chosen by God.
This may be an opportunity to compare the integrity of radiating from the divine within us with the fleetingness of radiating because we got close to some external source of divine power. However, I believe that by this point the premise is clear that what we call "divine" is a part of ourselves that we often keep hidden and of which we may even be unaware. The divine is something we can discover and develop within ourselves rather than an external intelligence who acts to aid or hinder us. The idea of Moses being "chosen" does provide an opportunity to address one of the logical fallacies about God many people hold to be true, namely the connected concepts of omniscience and predestination. This topic has been addressed by many others, but that's no reason to avoid it here.
Not all people who claim the label "Christian" believe in predestination, and there are some people who believe in a form of predestination and don't consider themselves to be religious at all. They call it something else, like Fate, but they mean more or less the same thing, that some force has already chosen a path for our lives. There is a prevalent belief that if one lives according to this predetermined plan, then one will be happy and successful, and if one goes against this plan, it leads to misery. In the sense of the Christian concept of God, this idea of predestination springs doctrinally from two sources. The first is the belief that God is omniscient, or has complete knowledge of everything. The second source is a handful of scriptures which specifically mention predestination. We'll take a look at the actual biblical passages first.
Although there are many scriptures which suggest that trusting the guidance of the divine is better than ignoring it, there aren't many scriptures that specifically say that everyone's path has been determined in advance by a divine being. One oft-quoted passage comes from the first chapter Jeremiah: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. Taken in context, it is clear that this is intended to credential Jeremiah specifically, not as a universal message to everybody. As a part of his final words to his disciples, Jesus is quoted in the book of John as saying, "You did not choose me, but I have chosen you." Again, in the context of that phrase, it's clear he's talking specifically to the men gathered around him at the time. So, it's important to recognize the context of biblical passages, even if one chooses to believe that the Bible is completely infallible.
The clearest support for the idea of predestination comes from the letters of Paul and Peter, who make mention of the concept that before time began, God already had chosen those who would believe in him and have salvation. Paul puts it this way in his letter to the Romans (8:29-30):
Again, I want to be very clear that this perspective is not one I espouse as an atheist. It's one of those concepts that I found difficult to accept even when I considered myself to be a "believer," and there are many different interpretations for the concept even among Christians. While there are some ways to interpret this that make some theological sense, let's start at the other extreme. There are some who reason that if God knows all things, then God knows the future of every person. This would mean that God already knew, before you were born, what job you would have, who you would marry, what your kids would be like, what kind of relationship you would have with your parents, who you would vote for in every election, and, of course, whether you would go to Heaven or Hell when you die. By this reasoning, God already knew that I would be writing these words and that you would be reading them, before time began. This perspective eliminates any illusion of personal choice or freedom. Not only does it make the idea of "saving" or "redeeming" anyone ridiculous, it eradicates the entire concept of personal responsibility.
"Wait a minute," you say, "just because God knows what I'm going to choose doesn't mean I don't have a choice!" You can't have it both ways. If God is infallible and knows all things perfectly -- past, present, and future -- then no person has any choice about anything. If God knows what will happen, every decision has already been determined in advance. This can be comforting on a certain level. Whether your job is crappy or sublime, it isn't because of anything you did -- it was foreordained by God. No matter what kind of spouse or parent you are, there's nothing you could possibly do to change -- it was all determined in advance. This also means that there's no point in getting bent out of shape about other people's behavior or decisions, since God's foreknowledge prevented them from doing anything differently. When someone bombs an embassy, drives drunk, drowns a child, overdoses on drugs, or flies a plane into a skyscraper, God knew all along that they would do that, and therefore they had no real choice in the matter. If they had a choice, then God would have been wrong, and a perfectly omniscient God cannot be wrong.
If this is true, then God also knows far in advance who will believe in him and who won't. He knows who will go to church for a spiritual experience and who will use religious institutions as fiefdoms of personal power. He knows who will become Buddhist, who will be Wiccan, and who won't be anything at all. You can't change what God knows. There is no point in trying to evangelize if God already knows who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell. If God is perfectly omniscient, there is no real hope for the hopeless, and there is nothing that the "chosen" can do wrong. It's great if you consider yourself to be one of the chosen, I suppose. There is simply no way that this definition of predestination can coexist with the concept of free will.
So maybe God's omniscience is not a past-present-future kind of thing. Maybe God knows all things that can be known. So, people still have freedom of choice in every moment, but as soon as the decision is made, God knows. People always have the opportunity to change course, to reconsider their beliefs and their actions, and thus free will is restored while God's omniscience is preserved. But what about the idea of predestination? If God has "chosen" some people, predestined an elect group out of the whole of humanity, then there would still seem to be some limit to human choice in spiritual matters. You can choose where you're going to work and whom you're going to marry, but God has already decided where you'll spend eternity? Any level of predestination suggests a certain amount of futility on the part of those not "chosen" while justifying a certain amount of superiority among those who consider themselves to be "chosen."
If you are going to choose to believe in an eternal soul which can be rewarded or punished, and if you are going to choose to believe in a benevolent external intelligence who oversees spiritual matters, there are not many definitions of "predestination" that make sense in the context of a larger belief system. Incidentally, some Christian theologians conclude that God has predestined everyone for salvation. Some Christian ministers have been ostracized for preaching a "gospel of inclusion," teaching that all people are destined for Heaven. It can be comforting to believe that God is working things out according to a plan, that when tragedy strikes, there is still someone in control of everything who loves you. I would suggest that it's still important to examine how that belief plays out in terms of taking personal responsibility for your decisions and the way that you treat other people. When concepts like predestination become tools for justifying one's bad behavior or dehumanizing other people, though, they become disconnected from anything divine. I am confident that our eventual examination of the biblical character of Jesus will bear out that assertion.
Moses was considered to be the divinely-chosen leader for the Israelites. The leaders of the early church also viewed their positions as divine appointments. There are plenty of people today who believe that God has "called" them into positions of authority, and who can argue with that? People in churches do not always view their pastors with the same level of respect, but there is literally no way to refute the claim that a divine power is behind the scenes working to place specific people in positions of authority. There is also no way to definitively prove that such activity is taking place. It comes down to a matter of belief without conclusive evidence.
From my perspective, it makes more sense to conclude that every person embodies divinity, that every person is worthy of my respect, and that I am likewise worthy of respect. I don't believe in fate or predestination, but I do believe that there is an inner drive that gravitates toward the things that will nurture and fulfill me. Part of me wrestles with that pull, because the things that I am drawn toward do not always line up neatly with societal expectations or lessons I learned in childhood. Sometimes I am afraid of where I will end up if I follow that inner drive. But when I am willing to acknowledge that guidance from within and quiet the obstinate chatter of my fears and the perceived judgment of the world around me, it can look very much like a path is laid out before me. It is a path of my own design, determined by my own passions and abilities.
If someone wants to believe that those passions and abilities were bestowed upon me by some outside source, I gain nothing from arguing against that belief. My own understanding of who I am simply doesn't require any external source. I am confident that anyone -- regardless of faith tradition or spiritual beliefs -- who fearlessly seeks that guidance from deep within will eventually find it. I would only qualify that with the assertion that the character of the divine within us embodies an awareness that all people have value and are worthy of respect, ourselves included. It isn't predestination. It is always a choice. And it is, in the deepest sense, true.
There is one short paragraph at the end of Exodus 34 in which Moses is described as glowing after he has been in the presence of the divine. It may be hard to imagine what that looked like, since no one these days seems to get close enough to God to come away from the experience with radiation poisoning, but there are people who visibly exude authority, power, even spiritual depth. Some of this may be good acting, but some people genuinely "shine" when they walk into a room. They attract attention because of the intensity of their presence. It's much easier to imagine Moses radiating an intimidating sense of authority and power, even spiritual understanding that surpassed the average Israelite. After all, Moses was chosen by God.
This may be an opportunity to compare the integrity of radiating from the divine within us with the fleetingness of radiating because we got close to some external source of divine power. However, I believe that by this point the premise is clear that what we call "divine" is a part of ourselves that we often keep hidden and of which we may even be unaware. The divine is something we can discover and develop within ourselves rather than an external intelligence who acts to aid or hinder us. The idea of Moses being "chosen" does provide an opportunity to address one of the logical fallacies about God many people hold to be true, namely the connected concepts of omniscience and predestination. This topic has been addressed by many others, but that's no reason to avoid it here.
Not all people who claim the label "Christian" believe in predestination, and there are some people who believe in a form of predestination and don't consider themselves to be religious at all. They call it something else, like Fate, but they mean more or less the same thing, that some force has already chosen a path for our lives. There is a prevalent belief that if one lives according to this predetermined plan, then one will be happy and successful, and if one goes against this plan, it leads to misery. In the sense of the Christian concept of God, this idea of predestination springs doctrinally from two sources. The first is the belief that God is omniscient, or has complete knowledge of everything. The second source is a handful of scriptures which specifically mention predestination. We'll take a look at the actual biblical passages first.
Although there are many scriptures which suggest that trusting the guidance of the divine is better than ignoring it, there aren't many scriptures that specifically say that everyone's path has been determined in advance by a divine being. One oft-quoted passage comes from the first chapter Jeremiah: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. Taken in context, it is clear that this is intended to credential Jeremiah specifically, not as a universal message to everybody. As a part of his final words to his disciples, Jesus is quoted in the book of John as saying, "You did not choose me, but I have chosen you." Again, in the context of that phrase, it's clear he's talking specifically to the men gathered around him at the time. So, it's important to recognize the context of biblical passages, even if one chooses to believe that the Bible is completely infallible.
The clearest support for the idea of predestination comes from the letters of Paul and Peter, who make mention of the concept that before time began, God already had chosen those who would believe in him and have salvation. Paul puts it this way in his letter to the Romans (8:29-30):
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son . . . And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.In his letter to the Ephesians, he wrote:
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.Other mentions of predestination by Paul and Peter are along the same lines. God supposedly selected at least some people ahead of time to be called into religious service.
Again, I want to be very clear that this perspective is not one I espouse as an atheist. It's one of those concepts that I found difficult to accept even when I considered myself to be a "believer," and there are many different interpretations for the concept even among Christians. While there are some ways to interpret this that make some theological sense, let's start at the other extreme. There are some who reason that if God knows all things, then God knows the future of every person. This would mean that God already knew, before you were born, what job you would have, who you would marry, what your kids would be like, what kind of relationship you would have with your parents, who you would vote for in every election, and, of course, whether you would go to Heaven or Hell when you die. By this reasoning, God already knew that I would be writing these words and that you would be reading them, before time began. This perspective eliminates any illusion of personal choice or freedom. Not only does it make the idea of "saving" or "redeeming" anyone ridiculous, it eradicates the entire concept of personal responsibility.
"Wait a minute," you say, "just because God knows what I'm going to choose doesn't mean I don't have a choice!" You can't have it both ways. If God is infallible and knows all things perfectly -- past, present, and future -- then no person has any choice about anything. If God knows what will happen, every decision has already been determined in advance. This can be comforting on a certain level. Whether your job is crappy or sublime, it isn't because of anything you did -- it was foreordained by God. No matter what kind of spouse or parent you are, there's nothing you could possibly do to change -- it was all determined in advance. This also means that there's no point in getting bent out of shape about other people's behavior or decisions, since God's foreknowledge prevented them from doing anything differently. When someone bombs an embassy, drives drunk, drowns a child, overdoses on drugs, or flies a plane into a skyscraper, God knew all along that they would do that, and therefore they had no real choice in the matter. If they had a choice, then God would have been wrong, and a perfectly omniscient God cannot be wrong.
If this is true, then God also knows far in advance who will believe in him and who won't. He knows who will go to church for a spiritual experience and who will use religious institutions as fiefdoms of personal power. He knows who will become Buddhist, who will be Wiccan, and who won't be anything at all. You can't change what God knows. There is no point in trying to evangelize if God already knows who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell. If God is perfectly omniscient, there is no real hope for the hopeless, and there is nothing that the "chosen" can do wrong. It's great if you consider yourself to be one of the chosen, I suppose. There is simply no way that this definition of predestination can coexist with the concept of free will.
So maybe God's omniscience is not a past-present-future kind of thing. Maybe God knows all things that can be known. So, people still have freedom of choice in every moment, but as soon as the decision is made, God knows. People always have the opportunity to change course, to reconsider their beliefs and their actions, and thus free will is restored while God's omniscience is preserved. But what about the idea of predestination? If God has "chosen" some people, predestined an elect group out of the whole of humanity, then there would still seem to be some limit to human choice in spiritual matters. You can choose where you're going to work and whom you're going to marry, but God has already decided where you'll spend eternity? Any level of predestination suggests a certain amount of futility on the part of those not "chosen" while justifying a certain amount of superiority among those who consider themselves to be "chosen."
If you are going to choose to believe in an eternal soul which can be rewarded or punished, and if you are going to choose to believe in a benevolent external intelligence who oversees spiritual matters, there are not many definitions of "predestination" that make sense in the context of a larger belief system. Incidentally, some Christian theologians conclude that God has predestined everyone for salvation. Some Christian ministers have been ostracized for preaching a "gospel of inclusion," teaching that all people are destined for Heaven. It can be comforting to believe that God is working things out according to a plan, that when tragedy strikes, there is still someone in control of everything who loves you. I would suggest that it's still important to examine how that belief plays out in terms of taking personal responsibility for your decisions and the way that you treat other people. When concepts like predestination become tools for justifying one's bad behavior or dehumanizing other people, though, they become disconnected from anything divine. I am confident that our eventual examination of the biblical character of Jesus will bear out that assertion.
Moses was considered to be the divinely-chosen leader for the Israelites. The leaders of the early church also viewed their positions as divine appointments. There are plenty of people today who believe that God has "called" them into positions of authority, and who can argue with that? People in churches do not always view their pastors with the same level of respect, but there is literally no way to refute the claim that a divine power is behind the scenes working to place specific people in positions of authority. There is also no way to definitively prove that such activity is taking place. It comes down to a matter of belief without conclusive evidence.
From my perspective, it makes more sense to conclude that every person embodies divinity, that every person is worthy of my respect, and that I am likewise worthy of respect. I don't believe in fate or predestination, but I do believe that there is an inner drive that gravitates toward the things that will nurture and fulfill me. Part of me wrestles with that pull, because the things that I am drawn toward do not always line up neatly with societal expectations or lessons I learned in childhood. Sometimes I am afraid of where I will end up if I follow that inner drive. But when I am willing to acknowledge that guidance from within and quiet the obstinate chatter of my fears and the perceived judgment of the world around me, it can look very much like a path is laid out before me. It is a path of my own design, determined by my own passions and abilities.
If someone wants to believe that those passions and abilities were bestowed upon me by some outside source, I gain nothing from arguing against that belief. My own understanding of who I am simply doesn't require any external source. I am confident that anyone -- regardless of faith tradition or spiritual beliefs -- who fearlessly seeks that guidance from deep within will eventually find it. I would only qualify that with the assertion that the character of the divine within us embodies an awareness that all people have value and are worthy of respect, ourselves included. It isn't predestination. It is always a choice. And it is, in the deepest sense, true.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Exodus 34: The Fear of Being Weak Makes Everyone Look Threatening
It's no wonder that some modern-day Christians seem so militantly closed-minded about any ideas that didn't come straight from their home church's pulpit. The words of Exodus 34 are directed exclusively to the Israelites and refer specifically to groups of people who existed thousands of years ago, so if one is inclined to take the Bible completely literally, it would seem that at least some of the information is obsolete. Still, the passage reveals something about the nature of the Israelite god, and it grants some insight into how beliefs about our essential nature impacts how we see the world around us.
As a brief tangent, there is one little phrase in this passage that bears pointing out to those who want to take the entirety of Christian scripture as accurate and infallible. The Israelite god commands, "No one is to appear before me empty-handed." It's one of those things that Jesus never directly contradicts in the New Testament. How many Christians take this to heart, I wonder? And how many of them justify their empty-handedness by claiming that their devotion is worth more than anything else they could bring before God? How many people believe that they're not appearing before God empty-handed if they've contributed to a radio station or a pregnancy crisis center or an organization that delivers Bibles to China? The meaning is pretty clear here: God expects your wealth. If you want to take the Bible as perfectly literal and true, you don't get to decide how he uses it.
Alright, now take a look at the image of God established by the Israelites. After Moses spends a long time chiseling new stone tablets (since he broke the first ones in a fit of rage), God is described as being compassionate and gracious, "slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness," and although he forgives wickedness, rebellion and sin, "he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation." This is the perfect description of a scapegoat god, the kind of deity that can be blamed for any misfortune, because he's just punishing some wickedness. Some wickedness that he has presumably also forgiven. It's a bit odd, come to think of it.
Taking this belief to its ultimate corollaries, if something bad happens in life, God may just be punishing you for what you've done. Or he may be punishing you for what your father or mother did. Or your grandparent or great-grandparent. For anyone who buys into this completely, there is no reason to try to help the poor, the sick, the abused, or anyone else who is suffering. They are just getting their punishment from God for something someone did, and why would a believer get in the way of God's just consequences. It's also a great belief for those who are wealthy, healthy, and happy in every way. God is obviously blessing them because their family has managed to go four generations without doing anything wicked or sinful. Right?
If that strikes you as slightly off, it's because our minds reject the nihilism of the concept that God is punishing everyone and there's nothing that can be done, because he punishes even those he has forgiven. No one can go through their lives without doing something worth being punished for, and our definition of forgiveness conflicts with the idea of punishing a person for what her father's mother's mother did. Fortunately, Jesus came along and turned a lot of this business on its head, but then, how can one claim that the entire Bible is true? What people believe about the character and behavior of God becomes filtered through what makes sense to them, and how we think God should treat us personally is often very different from how we think God should treat other people. It's fine for God to punish that other person, but we want forgiveness for ourselves to be absolute and pain-free.
The Israelites in the Exodus story wanted the same thing. Their god promised to wipe out the neighboring cultures (whom the exiled Israelites were technically invading), provided the Israelites had nothing to do with them. Don't even entertain the thought of learning about their beliefs or culture, and don't even consider the concept of a treaty with them. Why? They'll corrupt you. In fact, the Israelite god is named Jealousy in this passage. Jealousy is the same thing as "envy," right? So their god is defined as being one of the seven deadly sins, but they consider themselves to be the righteous people in this situation.
Unfortunately, they also consider themselves to be the weak people in the situation. They are afraid to make treaties with people, to participate in the culture or religious observance of the Other, because they believe they will be turned from their own faith. That level of small-mindedness isn't actually faith, though. It's ignorance. Why in the world would God suggest that his people remain ignorant about every other belief system around them? In order for those alternate beliefs to be a threat, the commitment of the Israelites would have to be pretty insubstantial. I've heard about many different cultures and religious belief systems over the course of my life, and I've only rarely been tempted to adopt any of them into my own perspective. My beliefs are strong enough to come into contact with other people's beliefs and remain intact. What was wrong with the Israelites that they would be so threatened by other cultures that their god would warn them not to even make treaties with those other people?
This type of passage from the Old Testament still informs the Conservative Christian worldview in the twenty-first century to some extent. There is no interest in learning about other cultures or faith systems. We just need to send our troops and wipe them out. We need to crack down on how many of Them are allowed into our country. They are out to kill us, and we need to kill them first. Even with regard to other belief systems in America, there is hostility based on assumption. Fear. Small-mindedness. Ignorance. These are not healthy lenses through which one should look at the world. I know there are Christians who sincerely believe that they are under constant threat from people with different beliefs, but it is simply not true. The only way it can be true is if the Christian in question is so weak in his or her faith that any other suggestion is going to create some crisis of belief, and I would suggest that that isn't faith at all.
Whatever we believe about ourselves, we are simply not that weak. People are not so vulnerable to external ideas that they cannot establish a set of criteria for themselves to determine what they are and aren't willing to believe. Different ideas are not a threat, they are simply other people's ways of viewing the world. We are capable of deciding what makes sense to us, regardless of our chosen belief system, and we are capable of interacting with other people without being "corrupted" or "led astray." When we encounter a belief that seems to be a challenge, it's just possible that we are experiencing growth at a certain level. We don't necessarily figure out all that there is to figure out about the world and human spirituality in grade school Sunday school classes.
There may be ideas that make a great deal of sense to us that we don't have a chance to explore until after we have traveled a bit down a particular belief path. If we view those other ideas as threats, we are essentially stagnating our own growth. We are claiming a desire to remain immature and ignorant in our beliefs. We would find it somewhat disturbing for a child to determine at age 10 that he isn't going to grow any taller and force his body to remain stunted. And yet, we are comfortable doing that with our own spiritual selves. If a belief is worth maintaining and nurturing, it will stand up to scrutiny. If our beliefs are shattered the moment they come into contact with a different way of seeing the world, what good were those beliefs really doing us? The only way our beliefs can be altered is for us to encounter a perspective that makes more sense than what we previously held to be true. This is growth, plain and simple. And there is nothing really threatening about growth, even though it may seem a little bit scary and unsettling.
Whether it is in the realm of politics, religion, personal relationships, business practices, or whatever, encountering new ideas is beneficial. When our beliefs are challenged by a new perspective, we either walk away from that with our old beliefs strengthened or we walk away with beliefs that make more sense to us. It may be a radical change, or it may be a subtle refinement, but either way we grow. We are strong enough to accept that other people will believe different things from us. They aren't a threat to us at all. They are simply different. Let's stop worshiping Jealousy and Ignorance and Fear as if they had any true power. The only thing those gods do is lie to us about ourselves and other people. And we are strong enough to let go of those lies.
As a brief tangent, there is one little phrase in this passage that bears pointing out to those who want to take the entirety of Christian scripture as accurate and infallible. The Israelite god commands, "No one is to appear before me empty-handed." It's one of those things that Jesus never directly contradicts in the New Testament. How many Christians take this to heart, I wonder? And how many of them justify their empty-handedness by claiming that their devotion is worth more than anything else they could bring before God? How many people believe that they're not appearing before God empty-handed if they've contributed to a radio station or a pregnancy crisis center or an organization that delivers Bibles to China? The meaning is pretty clear here: God expects your wealth. If you want to take the Bible as perfectly literal and true, you don't get to decide how he uses it.
Alright, now take a look at the image of God established by the Israelites. After Moses spends a long time chiseling new stone tablets (since he broke the first ones in a fit of rage), God is described as being compassionate and gracious, "slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness," and although he forgives wickedness, rebellion and sin, "he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation." This is the perfect description of a scapegoat god, the kind of deity that can be blamed for any misfortune, because he's just punishing some wickedness. Some wickedness that he has presumably also forgiven. It's a bit odd, come to think of it.
Taking this belief to its ultimate corollaries, if something bad happens in life, God may just be punishing you for what you've done. Or he may be punishing you for what your father or mother did. Or your grandparent or great-grandparent. For anyone who buys into this completely, there is no reason to try to help the poor, the sick, the abused, or anyone else who is suffering. They are just getting their punishment from God for something someone did, and why would a believer get in the way of God's just consequences. It's also a great belief for those who are wealthy, healthy, and happy in every way. God is obviously blessing them because their family has managed to go four generations without doing anything wicked or sinful. Right?
If that strikes you as slightly off, it's because our minds reject the nihilism of the concept that God is punishing everyone and there's nothing that can be done, because he punishes even those he has forgiven. No one can go through their lives without doing something worth being punished for, and our definition of forgiveness conflicts with the idea of punishing a person for what her father's mother's mother did. Fortunately, Jesus came along and turned a lot of this business on its head, but then, how can one claim that the entire Bible is true? What people believe about the character and behavior of God becomes filtered through what makes sense to them, and how we think God should treat us personally is often very different from how we think God should treat other people. It's fine for God to punish that other person, but we want forgiveness for ourselves to be absolute and pain-free.
The Israelites in the Exodus story wanted the same thing. Their god promised to wipe out the neighboring cultures (whom the exiled Israelites were technically invading), provided the Israelites had nothing to do with them. Don't even entertain the thought of learning about their beliefs or culture, and don't even consider the concept of a treaty with them. Why? They'll corrupt you. In fact, the Israelite god is named Jealousy in this passage. Jealousy is the same thing as "envy," right? So their god is defined as being one of the seven deadly sins, but they consider themselves to be the righteous people in this situation.
Unfortunately, they also consider themselves to be the weak people in the situation. They are afraid to make treaties with people, to participate in the culture or religious observance of the Other, because they believe they will be turned from their own faith. That level of small-mindedness isn't actually faith, though. It's ignorance. Why in the world would God suggest that his people remain ignorant about every other belief system around them? In order for those alternate beliefs to be a threat, the commitment of the Israelites would have to be pretty insubstantial. I've heard about many different cultures and religious belief systems over the course of my life, and I've only rarely been tempted to adopt any of them into my own perspective. My beliefs are strong enough to come into contact with other people's beliefs and remain intact. What was wrong with the Israelites that they would be so threatened by other cultures that their god would warn them not to even make treaties with those other people?
This type of passage from the Old Testament still informs the Conservative Christian worldview in the twenty-first century to some extent. There is no interest in learning about other cultures or faith systems. We just need to send our troops and wipe them out. We need to crack down on how many of Them are allowed into our country. They are out to kill us, and we need to kill them first. Even with regard to other belief systems in America, there is hostility based on assumption. Fear. Small-mindedness. Ignorance. These are not healthy lenses through which one should look at the world. I know there are Christians who sincerely believe that they are under constant threat from people with different beliefs, but it is simply not true. The only way it can be true is if the Christian in question is so weak in his or her faith that any other suggestion is going to create some crisis of belief, and I would suggest that that isn't faith at all.
Whatever we believe about ourselves, we are simply not that weak. People are not so vulnerable to external ideas that they cannot establish a set of criteria for themselves to determine what they are and aren't willing to believe. Different ideas are not a threat, they are simply other people's ways of viewing the world. We are capable of deciding what makes sense to us, regardless of our chosen belief system, and we are capable of interacting with other people without being "corrupted" or "led astray." When we encounter a belief that seems to be a challenge, it's just possible that we are experiencing growth at a certain level. We don't necessarily figure out all that there is to figure out about the world and human spirituality in grade school Sunday school classes.
There may be ideas that make a great deal of sense to us that we don't have a chance to explore until after we have traveled a bit down a particular belief path. If we view those other ideas as threats, we are essentially stagnating our own growth. We are claiming a desire to remain immature and ignorant in our beliefs. We would find it somewhat disturbing for a child to determine at age 10 that he isn't going to grow any taller and force his body to remain stunted. And yet, we are comfortable doing that with our own spiritual selves. If a belief is worth maintaining and nurturing, it will stand up to scrutiny. If our beliefs are shattered the moment they come into contact with a different way of seeing the world, what good were those beliefs really doing us? The only way our beliefs can be altered is for us to encounter a perspective that makes more sense than what we previously held to be true. This is growth, plain and simple. And there is nothing really threatening about growth, even though it may seem a little bit scary and unsettling.
Whether it is in the realm of politics, religion, personal relationships, business practices, or whatever, encountering new ideas is beneficial. When our beliefs are challenged by a new perspective, we either walk away from that with our old beliefs strengthened or we walk away with beliefs that make more sense to us. It may be a radical change, or it may be a subtle refinement, but either way we grow. We are strong enough to accept that other people will believe different things from us. They aren't a threat to us at all. They are simply different. Let's stop worshiping Jealousy and Ignorance and Fear as if they had any true power. The only thing those gods do is lie to us about ourselves and other people. And we are strong enough to let go of those lies.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Exodus 32-33: Golden Calves and Undeniable Access to the Divine
Those who assume that the Bible tells things chronologically with infallible accuracy must draw some strange conclusions about the events of Exodus 32-33. The Israelites are either outright liars, fickle with their word, or they have the brains of carrots. A few chapters back, Moses told them all what God wanted them to do, and all the Israelites agreed to it. Aaron was there, along with all the other Israelite leaders. Then, Moses went off to get the stone tablets God was carving for him, which took about 5 weeks. In that span of time, the Israelites, with cooperation from Aaron, forgot what they had promised and made a golden calf to worship.
As Aaron tells the story, the Israelites were evil-hearted from the start. They didn't know what had happened to Moses, and they wanted Aaron to make some gods to go before them, so Aaron told them to take off all their jewelry, which he threw into the fire and -- Voila! -- out came a statue of a calf. That was apparently a god the Israelites could relate to and worship for a few weeks before they got distracted by something else.
Well, Moses was so angry that he broke the stone tablets he had spent so much time carving, melted down the golden idol, ground the gold into powder, scattered it in the water supply and made the Israelites drink it. Then he ordered the Levites to kill 3,000 of their fellow Jews. That's less than 1% of the total Israelite population as the Bible records it, but it's still a hell of a violent streak. Back in Genesis, Jacob had this to say about Levi and his descendants:
The story is illustrative of a big issue, obviously. We want something concrete to believe in. Even when we believe we know the divine on some level, we still want something tangible. People (both in and out of the church) worship all sorts of things: money or the accumulation of personal possessions, fame or acknowledgment, physical pleasure, power over other people, political favor -- the list could go on and on. Very few people sincerely worship an intangible, invisible force that epitomizes unconditional love for all, which is how the Christian god is often portrayed. Even the Israelite god in Exodus was closer to a Greek deity with human emotions and weaknesses, as we'll see in just a moment.
First, though, let's consider what worshiping external things really says about us psychologically. The idea of worship literally means that one is attributing worth to something. To worship a thing is to proclaim its worthiness. And when we truly worship something, a part of us is committed to the belief that whatever we're worshiping is worthy of our total effort, adoration, gratitude -- the fullness of who we are. It's why some people who worship success become workaholics and why some people who worship fame do incredibly stupid things just for the attention it will garner. Our perception isn't always healthy. It can't be completely healthy when we are looking outside of ourselves for a target to which we can attribute value.
We are terribly uncomfortable with the idea that we ourselves are worthy of anything, that we have value. It's a bit of a burden for some people. If you are worth something, then you have to live up to that somehow. If you have value, then you have to maintain that value. As if you have to keep proving your worthiness to yourself, and potentially to everybody else. So we look to something outside of ourselves so we don't have to look inward and potentially face the fear that we are, at the end of the day, valueless. That we do not even approach worthiness. Much better to find something tangible that we can target. Money. Titles. Golden calf.
What's very interesting about the Exodus story is that God tells Moses that he needs to take those people away. They need to get on the road, and God will send an angel ahead of them to clear their enemies away. If the Israelites wait around, God may not be able to control his anger at this whole idolatry business, and he just may destroy them all. And God can't travel with them, because he is so angry that he'd just kill them en route. But when Moses pleads with him, God changes his tune rather quickly. Actually, Moses' pleading comes across as a bit manipulative and demanding, but the point is that it doesn't ultimately matter what Moses or the Israelites do, the divine presence won't abandon them.
This suggests a deep truth about the character of the divine: It cannot be separated from us. Even when we have acted in ways that betray that divine nature within us, when we have pursued things that do not lead us to satisfaction or happiness or peace, there is no chance that we will be abandoned by our divine nature. We cannot ultimately blot it out or eradicate it. The divine is a part of who we are, even if we decide to use some external imagery to relate to it.
People who recognize that there is nothing earthly that is truly worth that level of devotion sometimes find solace in the concept that there is something bigger, something beyond our complete perception, watching over us and guiding us. That there is someone who has taken care of all our mistakes -- covered over our unworthiness. Certainly that figure is worthy. That person is valuable enough to be worshiped. That person surpasses all that any human being could hope to be, especially us. And thus the stories and the beliefs and the mythology is born. Because we crave some source of meaning, and we are too afraid to look within to find it.
We build golden calves and mythologies because we crave some source of meaning, and we are too afraid to look within to find it.
Stop being afraid to look within yourself. There is nothing you need to do to have value. You simply are valuable. You are worthy of your highest level of commitment because you are you. The divine is a part of who you are, inseparable and yet deep enough to run the risk of being overlooked. There is no amount of money or fame or drugs or charity or sermons or political action or Communion that can truly overshadow the profound value and worthiness of being you. You are worth your best effort. You do not need to use any adornments to shield yourself from any ugly truth about who you are. That fear is a lie. You are worthy. Period.
As Aaron tells the story, the Israelites were evil-hearted from the start. They didn't know what had happened to Moses, and they wanted Aaron to make some gods to go before them, so Aaron told them to take off all their jewelry, which he threw into the fire and -- Voila! -- out came a statue of a calf. That was apparently a god the Israelites could relate to and worship for a few weeks before they got distracted by something else.
Well, Moses was so angry that he broke the stone tablets he had spent so much time carving, melted down the golden idol, ground the gold into powder, scattered it in the water supply and made the Israelites drink it. Then he ordered the Levites to kill 3,000 of their fellow Jews. That's less than 1% of the total Israelite population as the Bible records it, but it's still a hell of a violent streak. Back in Genesis, Jacob had this to say about Levi and his descendants:
Moses was apparently more comfortable with their genetic propensity for violence."their swords are weapons of violence.
Let me not enter their council, let me not join their assembly,
for they have killed men in their anger and hamstrung oxen as they pleased.
Cursed be their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel!
I will scatter them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel."
The story is illustrative of a big issue, obviously. We want something concrete to believe in. Even when we believe we know the divine on some level, we still want something tangible. People (both in and out of the church) worship all sorts of things: money or the accumulation of personal possessions, fame or acknowledgment, physical pleasure, power over other people, political favor -- the list could go on and on. Very few people sincerely worship an intangible, invisible force that epitomizes unconditional love for all, which is how the Christian god is often portrayed. Even the Israelite god in Exodus was closer to a Greek deity with human emotions and weaknesses, as we'll see in just a moment.
First, though, let's consider what worshiping external things really says about us psychologically. The idea of worship literally means that one is attributing worth to something. To worship a thing is to proclaim its worthiness. And when we truly worship something, a part of us is committed to the belief that whatever we're worshiping is worthy of our total effort, adoration, gratitude -- the fullness of who we are. It's why some people who worship success become workaholics and why some people who worship fame do incredibly stupid things just for the attention it will garner. Our perception isn't always healthy. It can't be completely healthy when we are looking outside of ourselves for a target to which we can attribute value.
We are terribly uncomfortable with the idea that we ourselves are worthy of anything, that we have value. It's a bit of a burden for some people. If you are worth something, then you have to live up to that somehow. If you have value, then you have to maintain that value. As if you have to keep proving your worthiness to yourself, and potentially to everybody else. So we look to something outside of ourselves so we don't have to look inward and potentially face the fear that we are, at the end of the day, valueless. That we do not even approach worthiness. Much better to find something tangible that we can target. Money. Titles. Golden calf.
What's very interesting about the Exodus story is that God tells Moses that he needs to take those people away. They need to get on the road, and God will send an angel ahead of them to clear their enemies away. If the Israelites wait around, God may not be able to control his anger at this whole idolatry business, and he just may destroy them all. And God can't travel with them, because he is so angry that he'd just kill them en route. But when Moses pleads with him, God changes his tune rather quickly. Actually, Moses' pleading comes across as a bit manipulative and demanding, but the point is that it doesn't ultimately matter what Moses or the Israelites do, the divine presence won't abandon them.
This suggests a deep truth about the character of the divine: It cannot be separated from us. Even when we have acted in ways that betray that divine nature within us, when we have pursued things that do not lead us to satisfaction or happiness or peace, there is no chance that we will be abandoned by our divine nature. We cannot ultimately blot it out or eradicate it. The divine is a part of who we are, even if we decide to use some external imagery to relate to it.
People who recognize that there is nothing earthly that is truly worth that level of devotion sometimes find solace in the concept that there is something bigger, something beyond our complete perception, watching over us and guiding us. That there is someone who has taken care of all our mistakes -- covered over our unworthiness. Certainly that figure is worthy. That person is valuable enough to be worshiped. That person surpasses all that any human being could hope to be, especially us. And thus the stories and the beliefs and the mythology is born. Because we crave some source of meaning, and we are too afraid to look within to find it.
We build golden calves and mythologies because we crave some source of meaning, and we are too afraid to look within to find it.
Stop being afraid to look within yourself. There is nothing you need to do to have value. You simply are valuable. You are worthy of your highest level of commitment because you are you. The divine is a part of who you are, inseparable and yet deep enough to run the risk of being overlooked. There is no amount of money or fame or drugs or charity or sermons or political action or Communion that can truly overshadow the profound value and worthiness of being you. You are worth your best effort. You do not need to use any adornments to shield yourself from any ugly truth about who you are. That fear is a lie. You are worthy. Period.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Abortion, Spirituality, and Why Debating the Right to Life Will Always End in Stalemate
Earlier this week marked the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision that sparked a national debate about abortion that has now raged for decades. On the one hand, there is almost no point in discussing abortion in an abstract sense, as people on both sides of the issue have firmly-rooted opinions based on mostly emotional arguments. What actual data there is on the subject has been interpreted to suit the stance of whomever is quoting the statistics, so it's even hard to have a conversation about abortion from a strictly scientific standpoint. Emotions drive people, and that drive is especially intense on such a loaded topic. Still, if one is to consider spiritual matters, it seems that the whole right-to-life debate must be addressed at some point. It will certainly be a hot topic in this year's election, and it is obviously at the forefront of many people's minds this week.
Abortion gets labeled in different ways, depending on who's doing the labeling. It may be about a woman's right to choose, or about life beginning at conception, or about the murder of American citizens, or about legislating morality, or any number of other angles. First and foremost, I want to be clear on my personal opinion, as a male without any children or any plans to procreate. I believe in personal freedom. I believe in second chances. I believe that people know themselves, often better than they realize, and that most individuals have the ability to be personally responsible for their actions. I am in favor of legalized abortion, and I'll go more into detail about where that intersects with my view of spirituality in a moment.
First, I want to address the religious perspective that has claimed the label of being "pro-life." It is certainly a compelling and impassioned stance which claims to be based on biblical principles. A strictly biblical view of the god of the Israelites won't lead to a modern-day anti-abortion activist's beliefs, though. The Ten Commandments do instruct people not to kill, although there are some caveats made for accidentally beating a slave to death. The true meaning, though, is clear as one continues through the Old Testament. The actual commandment is closer to "Don't kill a fellow Israelite who is adhering to the cultural mores."
People were put to death by the Israelites all over the place, and not just soldiers on the field of battle. If one accepts the Good Book as legitimate history, the Jews conquered cities and slaughtered all of the women and children. More than once. And not just because some general was bloodthirsty. They slaughtered innocent people because God told them to. Because they weren't Israelites. Israelite operatives were even sneaky sometimes about killing the enemies of their people, using a weapon held in the left hand, or driving a tent stake through someone's temple while they were sleeping. Sanctioned, cold-blooded murder. How can one argue that this deity actually has respect for human life?
One can't even say that the life of an Israelite is sacred. Despite what may have appeared in the Ten Commandment, even Israelites were subjected to the death penalty for almost anything deemed immoral by the authorities of the day. Of course, this was considered to be ordered by God as well. At the word of a couple of witnesses, an Israelite could be executed for worshiping a foreign god, bad-mouthing a judge, marrying someone who isn't an Israelite, committing adultery (just the women, though), homosexuality, prostitution, and a host of other things. Granted, we still consider the death penalty to be appropriate for certain crimes, and there may be other crimes for which we'd like to see a person killed. The point is, the god of the Israelites, as depicted in the Bible, was more concerned about preserving a culture of purity than he was about the value of human life.
In the New Testament, there is much less of this sort of sanctioned killing. For one reason, the Jewish people were under Roman rule at the time, so their system of crime and punishment was subjugated to Roman law. And they certainly weren't going to war with anyone. Still, God manages to kill off a few people who disobey him. One couple is struck dead for lying about selling property and trying to keep some of the proceeds from the early church. This is a capital offense. It's still hard to see the value for human life in things like that. On the bright side, by the end of the New Testament, it's clear that the early church was committed to the idea that all people are of equal value.
There are other reasons for a person to argue against abortion, however. Some may say that they are concerned for the psychological well-being of the mothers-to-be, but that could be addressed without making abortion illegal. Instead, a great deal of money and rhetoric goes into convincing people that abortion is morally wrong. Is the motivation really about the sanctity of human life? Do the people who argue against abortion also argue against the death penalty? Or do they also contribute money towards AIDS research? Or even cancer research? Do these proponents of life also protest wars in which innocent people are killed? Or do they accept collateral damage when they consider it a "just" war? The credibility of some of the loudest advocates for the "right to life" may be sullied if their complete philosophies about human life were scrutinized.
And what would happen if the nation's population were to suddenly swell with unwanted children? What is the end result the opponents of abortion foresee? While there have been studies that link the legalization of abortion with a decrease in crime rate, we cannot ultimately predict what the life of an unborn person would be like any more than we can predict with any certainty what the life of a stillborn infant would hold. Even with abortion legal, the number of child abuse cases in this country is staggering. If women who choose to give birth cannot even ensure a safe and loving environment for their children, what can we expect of women who do not actually want the children they are forced to carry to term?
The bottom line is that we cannot know. We do not know how those women would behave as mothers, and we do not know how their children would turn out. We do not know whether disinterested fathers would take responsibility. We cannot know the actual impact on schools, the job market, the society. Any claim would be speculation, and it seems dubious to force people to decide whether women should be allowed a choice regarding abortions based on speculation. In fact, if someone claims to know the future, that Old Testament God would tell us to put them to death for being a witch.
President Obama once said that if one of his daughters made a mistake, he wouldn't want them punished with a child. That statement has been bandied about by some people, the interpretation being that children are a punishment. It's easy to twist words around. The point is that if a girl gets pregnant and is forced to have the child, that child becomes like a punishment. A child can disrupt the entire course of someone's life. It can mean a change in what a person is able to earn, and it can mean a change in what a person is able to contribute to the world. Ideally, a child is pretty high on the priority list for a mother. Other things have to take a back seat. While it has been said that no one is ever really ready for children, there are many people who look upon their children as a blessing. Some people still see their children as a burden, but a burden they are willing to bear. If someone is looking at having a child as a punishment, what kind of parent will that person be? Again, some speculation would be involved in answering that question, but I'm grateful my mother didn't think of me as a punishment.
As I have stated many times, each person holds within them a deep sense of truth, beauty, and creativity. Each person can look within themselves and find the divine. If we value human life, we must acknowledge a respect for those people already living. We must trust at a certain level that people are capable and valuable. Otherwise, why would we care about life or abortion or any related topic? Until our society is through applauding violence against people of different religions, condoning the deaths of people who disagree with our international policies, and arguing about whether people of different lifestyle choices deserve equal treatment, the claim that any group is opposed to abortion out of respect for human life is going to seem a bit suspect. Let's first eradicate child abuse—domestic violence of all kinds for that matter. Let's make sure the children who come into this world will have the possibility of meaningful employment. Let's do everything in our power to bequeath a world worth living in to those who come after us. Until then, whether or not a woman chooses to bear a child or have an abortion seems rather insignificant.
Plus, I've noticed that women are still having children. Many of them love their children more than anything in the world. That hasn't changed just because abortion became legal. I believe that people know themselves, often better than they realize. So I believe that women have the ability to know whether they truly want to have a child. I believe that is it possible to live in a world in which people are trusted with the decisions of their own lives. If people are to be given an opportunity to be personally responsible for their actions, they must be free to act in accordance with their own conscience. No politician or preacher or law can change the truth inside of a person. Whether a woman chooses to have children, or chooses to have an abortion, or chooses to never be in a circumstance that would necessitate such a decision, there are consequences and rewards. If we are truly concerned about the value of human life, perhaps there is a way for us to be present with the women around us, with love for them as human beings and respect their decisions.
Abortion gets labeled in different ways, depending on who's doing the labeling. It may be about a woman's right to choose, or about life beginning at conception, or about the murder of American citizens, or about legislating morality, or any number of other angles. First and foremost, I want to be clear on my personal opinion, as a male without any children or any plans to procreate. I believe in personal freedom. I believe in second chances. I believe that people know themselves, often better than they realize, and that most individuals have the ability to be personally responsible for their actions. I am in favor of legalized abortion, and I'll go more into detail about where that intersects with my view of spirituality in a moment.
First, I want to address the religious perspective that has claimed the label of being "pro-life." It is certainly a compelling and impassioned stance which claims to be based on biblical principles. A strictly biblical view of the god of the Israelites won't lead to a modern-day anti-abortion activist's beliefs, though. The Ten Commandments do instruct people not to kill, although there are some caveats made for accidentally beating a slave to death. The true meaning, though, is clear as one continues through the Old Testament. The actual commandment is closer to "Don't kill a fellow Israelite who is adhering to the cultural mores."
People were put to death by the Israelites all over the place, and not just soldiers on the field of battle. If one accepts the Good Book as legitimate history, the Jews conquered cities and slaughtered all of the women and children. More than once. And not just because some general was bloodthirsty. They slaughtered innocent people because God told them to. Because they weren't Israelites. Israelite operatives were even sneaky sometimes about killing the enemies of their people, using a weapon held in the left hand, or driving a tent stake through someone's temple while they were sleeping. Sanctioned, cold-blooded murder. How can one argue that this deity actually has respect for human life?
One can't even say that the life of an Israelite is sacred. Despite what may have appeared in the Ten Commandment, even Israelites were subjected to the death penalty for almost anything deemed immoral by the authorities of the day. Of course, this was considered to be ordered by God as well. At the word of a couple of witnesses, an Israelite could be executed for worshiping a foreign god, bad-mouthing a judge, marrying someone who isn't an Israelite, committing adultery (just the women, though), homosexuality, prostitution, and a host of other things. Granted, we still consider the death penalty to be appropriate for certain crimes, and there may be other crimes for which we'd like to see a person killed. The point is, the god of the Israelites, as depicted in the Bible, was more concerned about preserving a culture of purity than he was about the value of human life.
In the New Testament, there is much less of this sort of sanctioned killing. For one reason, the Jewish people were under Roman rule at the time, so their system of crime and punishment was subjugated to Roman law. And they certainly weren't going to war with anyone. Still, God manages to kill off a few people who disobey him. One couple is struck dead for lying about selling property and trying to keep some of the proceeds from the early church. This is a capital offense. It's still hard to see the value for human life in things like that. On the bright side, by the end of the New Testament, it's clear that the early church was committed to the idea that all people are of equal value.
There are other reasons for a person to argue against abortion, however. Some may say that they are concerned for the psychological well-being of the mothers-to-be, but that could be addressed without making abortion illegal. Instead, a great deal of money and rhetoric goes into convincing people that abortion is morally wrong. Is the motivation really about the sanctity of human life? Do the people who argue against abortion also argue against the death penalty? Or do they also contribute money towards AIDS research? Or even cancer research? Do these proponents of life also protest wars in which innocent people are killed? Or do they accept collateral damage when they consider it a "just" war? The credibility of some of the loudest advocates for the "right to life" may be sullied if their complete philosophies about human life were scrutinized.
And what would happen if the nation's population were to suddenly swell with unwanted children? What is the end result the opponents of abortion foresee? While there have been studies that link the legalization of abortion with a decrease in crime rate, we cannot ultimately predict what the life of an unborn person would be like any more than we can predict with any certainty what the life of a stillborn infant would hold. Even with abortion legal, the number of child abuse cases in this country is staggering. If women who choose to give birth cannot even ensure a safe and loving environment for their children, what can we expect of women who do not actually want the children they are forced to carry to term?
The bottom line is that we cannot know. We do not know how those women would behave as mothers, and we do not know how their children would turn out. We do not know whether disinterested fathers would take responsibility. We cannot know the actual impact on schools, the job market, the society. Any claim would be speculation, and it seems dubious to force people to decide whether women should be allowed a choice regarding abortions based on speculation. In fact, if someone claims to know the future, that Old Testament God would tell us to put them to death for being a witch.
President Obama once said that if one of his daughters made a mistake, he wouldn't want them punished with a child. That statement has been bandied about by some people, the interpretation being that children are a punishment. It's easy to twist words around. The point is that if a girl gets pregnant and is forced to have the child, that child becomes like a punishment. A child can disrupt the entire course of someone's life. It can mean a change in what a person is able to earn, and it can mean a change in what a person is able to contribute to the world. Ideally, a child is pretty high on the priority list for a mother. Other things have to take a back seat. While it has been said that no one is ever really ready for children, there are many people who look upon their children as a blessing. Some people still see their children as a burden, but a burden they are willing to bear. If someone is looking at having a child as a punishment, what kind of parent will that person be? Again, some speculation would be involved in answering that question, but I'm grateful my mother didn't think of me as a punishment.
As I have stated many times, each person holds within them a deep sense of truth, beauty, and creativity. Each person can look within themselves and find the divine. If we value human life, we must acknowledge a respect for those people already living. We must trust at a certain level that people are capable and valuable. Otherwise, why would we care about life or abortion or any related topic? Until our society is through applauding violence against people of different religions, condoning the deaths of people who disagree with our international policies, and arguing about whether people of different lifestyle choices deserve equal treatment, the claim that any group is opposed to abortion out of respect for human life is going to seem a bit suspect. Let's first eradicate child abuse—domestic violence of all kinds for that matter. Let's make sure the children who come into this world will have the possibility of meaningful employment. Let's do everything in our power to bequeath a world worth living in to those who come after us. Until then, whether or not a woman chooses to bear a child or have an abortion seems rather insignificant.
Plus, I've noticed that women are still having children. Many of them love their children more than anything in the world. That hasn't changed just because abortion became legal. I believe that people know themselves, often better than they realize. So I believe that women have the ability to know whether they truly want to have a child. I believe that is it possible to live in a world in which people are trusted with the decisions of their own lives. If people are to be given an opportunity to be personally responsible for their actions, they must be free to act in accordance with their own conscience. No politician or preacher or law can change the truth inside of a person. Whether a woman chooses to have children, or chooses to have an abortion, or chooses to never be in a circumstance that would necessitate such a decision, there are consequences and rewards. If we are truly concerned about the value of human life, perhaps there is a way for us to be present with the women around us, with love for them as human beings and respect their decisions.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Exodus 25-31: Being Specific About the Things We Call Sacred
The chapters that follow the Israelites’ agreement to Moses’ laws are extraordinarily detailed instructions about constructing holy places and items--the intended focal points of the culture. A tabernacle (or movable temple), a fancy container for the stone tablets on which their laws were carved, an elaborate breastplate for the high priest to wear, an altar table complete with golden plates and pitchers, and a lampstand. All of these items were representative of spiritual ideas that the Israelites valued. They also required an incredible amount of gold, acacia wood, and valuable gems—not to mention time and craftsmanship. Embedded in all of the detailed instructions for constructing these bits of religious paraphernalia are detailed instructions for consecrating the priests who would use it.
From a historical perspective, it’s hard to imagine the Israelites carrying around all of this wealth, but they did supposedly rob the Egyptians blind before their departure. All of the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt, but the instructions say that each person is to give the same amount to the temple, whether they are rich or poor. How are there rich and poor among the Israelites at this point? Or was Moses just thinking ahead? Or was this written at some later time and inserted among these other holy instructions to legitimize it? These instructions were, after all, supposed to be coming from God directly.
One could get lost in the details of these directions, which actually include the names of craftsmen God has chosen to oversee various parts of the project. The fact that so many details exist is worth noting, however. Anyone who has ever been part of a collaborative effort knows how much easier it would be if all of the instructions were spelled out explicitly and came from an infallible source. Often, people come to the table with their own ideas believing that their way of doing something is superior to everyone else’s and the bulk of the collaborative effort is spent just trying to decide how something is going to be done. That was not what the Israelites in the story needed to spend time on.
Giving people a clear task and setting them to it is a brilliant bit of leadership. Stay busy doing something sacred and you won’t be complaining as much. And the instructions came from God, so there’s no arguing with how you’re going to do it; there is only the task itself to focus on. On top of that, God named the people who are in charge of various tasks, so there’s no reason to argue with their authority. God has appointed them, so just follow their direction and focus on the task. Brilliant. Of course, as we see just after this span of chapters, people still have a mind of their own, but that’s beside the point.
It would be wonderful if we had such detailed instructions for the things we spend our time on. We could get a lot more accomplished. One obstacle is that we so rarely consider anything to be sacred anymore. Even people who spend a great deal of time involved in church activities do not really grasp the idea that what they are doing is somehow holy, elevated, or special. In many Protestant churches, there is still the problem of people who lack respect for their spiritual leaders and time lost debating whose idea is superior, with spirituality and faith being the furthest thing from the conversation. The religious implements that Moses described were something special. Work on them was meaningful because the end product was sacred. We don’t often have that sense of meaning in the things we do.
With an understanding that the divine is truly a facet of who we are, though, we can recognize our own authority to determine for ourselves what has meaning in our lives. We determine what is sacred and holy and special to us. We don’t require an outside authority to direct us with the details, and often we are culturally trained to question authority and challenge any manner of control that someone tries to exert over us. It becomes a fight to defend our autonomy rather than a calm and purposeful sense of what has meaning to us. Our energy gets spent on defending ourselves rather than doing the things that have real value.
There are times when partnership is necessary, too. How do we collaborate when each individual decides what is sacred and meaningful? We could just assign leadership, the way Moses’ instructions do. “This person is in charge of this task, no questions or arguments.” Of course, every collaborator would have to agree on who that person will be. The key is in realizing that the collaboration itself has something sacred about it. Here are these people, each embodying those divine qualities of truth, beauty, and creativity, all committed to a meaningful purpose. It isn’t necessary to be in control, or to defend one’s ideas. The role of each individual in that collaboration is to speak from a place of truth and inspiration that is deeper than ego and petty agendas. Partnership is something sacred. It’s something that calls forth the divine within us if we allow it.
In our own lives, we are in charge of what is sacred. And if we do not ascribe meaning to our activities, no one else will do it for us. It is our own responsibility to recognize what is holy to us. Likewise, it's not our place to decide for anyone else what is sacred or holy. Their own divine self will guide them in that regard. When we collaborate with others, we have an opportunity to share that sacred space with other people, to learn what means holiness to them and to share our own sense of meaning and purpose. When we begin to see how deeply meaningful our actions are, the sacredness of what we choose to do with our time and energy, perhaps we will put the same level of attention into our lives as Moses did when giving instructions about the Israelites’ implements of worship.
From a historical perspective, it’s hard to imagine the Israelites carrying around all of this wealth, but they did supposedly rob the Egyptians blind before their departure. All of the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt, but the instructions say that each person is to give the same amount to the temple, whether they are rich or poor. How are there rich and poor among the Israelites at this point? Or was Moses just thinking ahead? Or was this written at some later time and inserted among these other holy instructions to legitimize it? These instructions were, after all, supposed to be coming from God directly.
One could get lost in the details of these directions, which actually include the names of craftsmen God has chosen to oversee various parts of the project. The fact that so many details exist is worth noting, however. Anyone who has ever been part of a collaborative effort knows how much easier it would be if all of the instructions were spelled out explicitly and came from an infallible source. Often, people come to the table with their own ideas believing that their way of doing something is superior to everyone else’s and the bulk of the collaborative effort is spent just trying to decide how something is going to be done. That was not what the Israelites in the story needed to spend time on.
Giving people a clear task and setting them to it is a brilliant bit of leadership. Stay busy doing something sacred and you won’t be complaining as much. And the instructions came from God, so there’s no arguing with how you’re going to do it; there is only the task itself to focus on. On top of that, God named the people who are in charge of various tasks, so there’s no reason to argue with their authority. God has appointed them, so just follow their direction and focus on the task. Brilliant. Of course, as we see just after this span of chapters, people still have a mind of their own, but that’s beside the point.
It would be wonderful if we had such detailed instructions for the things we spend our time on. We could get a lot more accomplished. One obstacle is that we so rarely consider anything to be sacred anymore. Even people who spend a great deal of time involved in church activities do not really grasp the idea that what they are doing is somehow holy, elevated, or special. In many Protestant churches, there is still the problem of people who lack respect for their spiritual leaders and time lost debating whose idea is superior, with spirituality and faith being the furthest thing from the conversation. The religious implements that Moses described were something special. Work on them was meaningful because the end product was sacred. We don’t often have that sense of meaning in the things we do.
With an understanding that the divine is truly a facet of who we are, though, we can recognize our own authority to determine for ourselves what has meaning in our lives. We determine what is sacred and holy and special to us. We don’t require an outside authority to direct us with the details, and often we are culturally trained to question authority and challenge any manner of control that someone tries to exert over us. It becomes a fight to defend our autonomy rather than a calm and purposeful sense of what has meaning to us. Our energy gets spent on defending ourselves rather than doing the things that have real value.
There are times when partnership is necessary, too. How do we collaborate when each individual decides what is sacred and meaningful? We could just assign leadership, the way Moses’ instructions do. “This person is in charge of this task, no questions or arguments.” Of course, every collaborator would have to agree on who that person will be. The key is in realizing that the collaboration itself has something sacred about it. Here are these people, each embodying those divine qualities of truth, beauty, and creativity, all committed to a meaningful purpose. It isn’t necessary to be in control, or to defend one’s ideas. The role of each individual in that collaboration is to speak from a place of truth and inspiration that is deeper than ego and petty agendas. Partnership is something sacred. It’s something that calls forth the divine within us if we allow it.
In our own lives, we are in charge of what is sacred. And if we do not ascribe meaning to our activities, no one else will do it for us. It is our own responsibility to recognize what is holy to us. Likewise, it's not our place to decide for anyone else what is sacred or holy. Their own divine self will guide them in that regard. When we collaborate with others, we have an opportunity to share that sacred space with other people, to learn what means holiness to them and to share our own sense of meaning and purpose. When we begin to see how deeply meaningful our actions are, the sacredness of what we choose to do with our time and energy, perhaps we will put the same level of attention into our lives as Moses did when giving instructions about the Israelites’ implements of worship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)