MINDFULNESS IN THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION (Part 2)

‘But mindfulness is Buddhist!’

I hear those words from time to time from a Christian, usually an evangelical.

Now, as Richard Nixon used to say, let me make this perfectly clear. Mindfulness is not Buddhist. Well, certainly not exclusively or inherently so, and even as respects Buddhism mindfulness is only one aspect of one particular tradition in Buddhism. Mindfulness is universal. It is grounded in the human experience of living fully from one moment to the next.

You can find mindfulness in all religious and spiritual traditions, including Christianity. What’s more, you can find mindfulness outside of religious and spiritual traditions. 

For the most part, the mindfulness that I teach is outside mainstream religious and spiritual traditions, although I do draw from a number of those traditions where I think they are making a valid point, that is, a point of universal importance and one that is generally in the nature of a self-evident truth. Of course, a self-evident truth is not always readily apparent or discernible to people. However, once a self-evident truth is properly understood, you are justified in affirming it as true.

In a previous post I looked at mindfulness in the Christian tradition. In this post, I want to focus on some good advice from the Bible. It’s from the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). It is from both the Jewish and Christian traditions, but the advice is good for all of us, even for those who claim not to believe in a God.

The Hebrew Scriptures advise us to know God by becoming still: ‘Be still and know that I am God’ (Psalm 46:10).

Who or what is God? Some dubious theological construct, one that some people have made up in their minds in an attempt to explain the mystery of life, but which doesn’t actually exist in objective reality? Well, the Bible elsewhere refers to God as the One ‘in whom we live and move and have our being’ (Acts 17:28). For me, ‘God’, when I use the word, which is not that often, refers to the one universal Presence and Power active in the universe, the medium (that is, order or level of reality) in which all things have their very be-ing-ness. God, if you choose to use the word at all – and you need not – is the Supreme Being, and we have our be-ing-ness, our very existence, in that Being.

Back to Psalm 46:10. There is so much in that short verse. The first thing to note is the importance of being still, if we are to come to know and experience the larger reality that the Bible refers to as ‘God’. In explaining this verse to people I sometimes break it up like this:

‘Be still and know that I am God’

‘Be still and know that I am …’

‘Be still and know …’

‘Be still …’

‘Be …’

If you experience the verse – note that word ‘experience’ – that way I truly believe that you will come to know and experience what some choose to call God. You can call it whatever you like. It doesn’t really matter. As J. Krishnamurti used to say, over and over again, ‘The word [in this case, God] is not the thing.’ It’s the reality – the experience – behind and beyond the word that really matters. Indeed, it is all that matters.

One of my spiritual mentors was the late Dr Norman Vincent Peale. He helped millions of troubled people in his long lifetime. He gave some wonderful advice on how to still the mind and the body. He often said that you cannot still the mind until the body has become still. First, still--- that is, relax---the body, and then the mind will follow. Dr Peale wrote, ‘Sit still, be silent, let composure creep over you.' Then you will be still. That's why Psalm 46:10 says, 'Be still ...' It's not a matter of do-ing but be-ing.

Jesus preached the 'kingdom of God' (referred to in Matthew’s gospel as the ‘kingdom of Heaven’). For me, the Kingdom of God is that state of being and consciousness that is often referred to as the eternal now. There is an eternal, that is, atemporal, quality about the now. It is forever new. The present moment has its unfolding in the Now. The past is no more than the expression of a present reality, being a present ‘window link’ to the eternity of the Now. Any memories of the past are a present reality. It’s the same as respects the future, for any ideas about or hopes for the future are present ideas and hopes. You see, the present is simply that which presents itself before us in and as the Now. So, the present embraces past, present and future. What's more, the kingdom of God is not only a 'place' of inner strength and power, it's also a repository of stillness and quietude.

Back, once again, to Psalm 46:10. ‘Be still and know that I am God.’ First, the ‘knowledge’ spoken of is not book knowledge. Not at all. It is an inner knowing. Secondly, note those words ‘… I am God.’ Now, I am not saying that you and I are God, although I do say that you and I, as well as all other persons and things, have their be-ing-ness in God. Now, those words ‘I am God’. God is the Great I Am, that is, the presence and power of pure Being. What’s more, that pure Being is the very be-ing-ness of the person that you are.

When you enter the silence, you are approaching the very presence of be-ing – that is, sheer existence … the very livingness of life itself. The state of mind experienced in the silence is not one of passivity or non-action. No, it is a truly awakened state of mind and be-ing-ness in which all things are experienced as new and fresh in the omnipresent eternal now. 

In time, and with regular practice, the action of being fully and choicelessly present in the moment from one moment to the next – the essence of mindfulness and living mindfully – will quicken and intensify.

The essence of Christianity is the experience of coming to know God – the larger reality – in the form, and through the person, of Jesus. What’s so special about Jesus? Well, among other things, Jesus lived and was fully grounded in the eternal now. His strength, power and peace were the result of his being at-one with the source of all life and being, and his living fully in the eternal now. That is why he said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ (John 18:36). Now, as I see it, Jesus was not saying that his kingdom was on some supposed ‘higher’ order or level of reality. No, the kingdom of which Jesus spoke is one that that we enter when we live in the eternal now. It is the very reason why Jesus said that he had come.  ‘I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full’ (John 10:10). Abundant living. Living mindfully in the eternal now. Living selflessly. Living lovingly.

‘Be still and know …’

RELATED POSTS

MINDFULNESS IN THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION

MINDFULNESS IN THE BIBLE

MINDFULNESS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

THE DOWNING OF MH17: EVIL WALKS AMONG US

           ‘We will bury you.’ -- Nikita Khrushchev.

From time to time certain things happen in our world, as well as in our individual lives, that remind us that … evil walks among us.

Now, I have always said---and I still believe it to be so---that we are neither totally depraved, as many Christians would have you believe, nor good beyond belief as some ‘chipper believers in a happiness cult’ (to borrow a phrase from Harry Emerson Fosdick) assert is true. Judaism teaches that there is an evil inclination (yetzer ha’ra) as well as a good inclination (yetzer ha’tov) in each of us, and that makes a lot of sense to me.

The recent downing---or should I say shooting-down---of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (‘MH17’) was a wicked and evil act. Those who committed this dreadful act have allowed a peculiarly twisted ideology to warp their thoughts, judgment and actions. Worse still, there are some who try to convince us that good is evil, that what we see and know to be true is not true at all. Evil, that is, those who are guilty, says to good, that is, those who are innocent, 'No, you did it, not us.' 

We see this phenomenon all about us. It is something akin to what the New Testament refers to as ‘blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,’ the so-called unforgivable sin. Yes, there are human beings who perpetrate wicked acts and then try to convince us that what we know in our hearts, and see and adjudge with our eyes, to be evil is really good. Worse still, they seek to accuse the innocent of being the wrongdoers. They act clandestinely, without openness, without transparency. They are into blame-shifting and hand-washing. Russia, still the evil empire in so many ways, has sought to do just that with the recent downing of MH17, and I see the very same phenomenon at work in the Middle East. It is a very human phenomenon. Evil masquerades as good, and seeks to blame good for the occurrence of evil. So, we were told by Russia that Ukraine was responsible for the blasting from the sky of MH17, because the dreadful incident occurred in the airspace above, and on the land of, Ukraine. They blame Ukraine for the incident but the pro-Russian separatists, backed and trained by Russia, should have absolutely nothing to hide if Ukraine were to blame, then continue to restrict access to the site and refuse to cooperate with international observers, representatives and investigators. Wicked, perverse, and twisted thinking, that. Very Russian. I make no apologies for saying that. I am bitterly disappointed and angry.

The truly terrible thing about calling evil good, and good evil, is that it is, yes, unforgivable. Why? Because there is no possibility of forgiveness and redemption whilst a person, a group of persons, or a nation is in the grip of such a perverted mindset. Once you place yourself outside the moral paradigm that sees wickedness for what it truly is, you cannot see the wickedness of your ways, and so there can be no forgiveness until you come to see the error of your ways. Only then can you say to yourself, ‘This is wrong, I am wrong.’ The so-called unforgivable sin is both unforgivable and forgivable. It is unforgivable for so long as you refuse to recognize the reality of human wickedness (sin, in theological language). It is forgivable if and when you come to see things as they really are---good as good, and evil as evil.

I have absolutely no time for moral relativism and its ‘first cousin,’ cultural relativism. I also have no time for those who believe in moral absolutes. My view of what is right and wrong is an objective one. What is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. Yes, no action is absolutely right or wrong, but there are at least some things that are objectively right and others that are objectively wrong. Now, there is a big difference between moral objectivism and moral absolutism. For starters, moral objectivism does not depend upon any appeal to authority, that is, to some supposed holy book or holy person. As I see it, good is simply that which works for unity, oneness, wholeness, and integration. Evil is that which works for disunity, separateness, division, and disintegration. Good gives of itself to others, so as to create more good. Sadly, evil gives of itself, too. 

At any given point in time, in our world as well as in our individual lives, there are forces at work for unity, oneness, wholeness, and integration, and there are forces at work for disunity, separateness, selfishness, and disintegration. Each of us needs to choose carefully, with our every thought, word, and deed. Now, having said all that, ethical decision-making is never an easy task, and I certainly do not believe that there is ever only one right ‘answer’ to any particular moral or ethical dilemma, but we do have in our possession the ability to discern certain ethical values that, in and of themselves, are objectively right. This is a huge and complex topic area, and I will simply leave it at that for the time being, in the full knowledge that what I’ve just said will be unsatisfactory for a great number of people. So be it.

At this time, when so many innocent people, including infants, have lost their lives, many will be saying, quite understandably, ‘Where is God in all this?” That is a fair question, and it is not an easy one to answer. One's answer depends very much on one's theology. Everyone has a theology of sorts, even the atheist. My theology is very much a 'theology of man,' but there is a strong Catholic flavour to it nevertheless. I simply say this. God---please don’t let the word trouble you, for the word is not the ‘thing’---was in each of those persons who died. Yes, the One that I affirm is God died at the hands of the wicked people who downed that aircraft, and it is that Self-same God that is to be found in all those decent hardworking people who are working their butts off (pardon the expression) to do good at this truly terrible time. That’s right, God takes shape and form in those who rescue, comfort, and heal. God is also in all those people who are grieving at this time, having lost loved ones.

Now, there will be more than a few people who will have lost hope of the possibility of redemption and any good coming out of this terrible, wicked act. I can understand that. But God, who is so very human, having forever aligned Himself with suffering humanity from even before the very beginning of time, is constantly living, and constantly suffering, and constantly dying, and constantly rising again. Such is the eternal nature of life, for everyone and everything is, to use a Biblical turn of phrase, begotten of the Only One (cf Jn 1:3, Jn 3:16, 1 Jn 4:9).

One of the many memorable parables of Jesus is the ‘Parable of the Weeds’ (see Mt 13:24-30). A person sowed good seed in their field, but while everyone was sleeping, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and then went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, the weeds also appeared. Now, what was to be done? Well, Jesus said that it would be futile and self-defeating to try to simply pull out the weeds, for then you ran the risk of uprooting the wheat with the weeds. You had to let both grow together until the harvest. Then you could collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned, and gather the wheat and bring it into the barn.

The innocent crew and passengers of MH17 are the person who sowed good seed (wheat) in their field. They now find themselves broken, dead, and scattered among the sunflower fields of Eastern Ukraine. Those who downed the aircraft, as well as those who are now acting wrongly in various ways to pick over and loot, and then trash, the victims' belongings scattered among the wreckage, destroy vital evidence, and otherwise conceal the truth, not to mention unceremoniously remove human bodies as if the remains were garden refuse and the pro-Russian separatists and rebel soldiers were simply involved in a garden cleanup, are the enemy (yes, enemy) sowing weeds among the wheat. (You know, isn't interesting how evil always acts clandestinely, furtively, deceptively, and duplicitously?) Now, here's the rub. We can’t simply pull out the weeds, although we’d all very much like to do that if we could. Our only hope is that, in time, we will have the opportunity to gather the wheat and ‘bring it into the barn,’ and then proceed to burn those horrible weeds. In the meantime, we must sublimate our suffering, as well as our anger, into sacrifice for the living as well as for the dead. We must transmute our fears, pain and suffering into tribute to the victims of MH17. We must insist on a proper independent, international forensic investigation, respect and justice for the dead, and compassion and other assistance for the living. You see, sacrifice spells salvation and redemption.

Now, I am very much aware that what I have said in this post will be of little or no comfort to those who grieve, but that is how I see it. God is not some remote, otherworldly, supposedly ‘supernatural’ figure, but a very human figure. We see God being wrongfully crucified all the time at the hands of wicked men and women, but we can also see God in all those decent people who, following their good inclination (yetzer ha’tov), act with kindness, compassion, and mercy. And we can see God in all those broken people who are suffering and grieving at this time and who will continue to suffer for quite a while to come. The real message of the three great monotheistic religions is this---we must be God to each other. There was a time when I never thought I could or would say that, but I can say it now … and it must be said. Yes, we must be God to each other, for we are the arms and legs of God. We are not God, but God, in a very special sense, is us. And when we minister to others we minister to the One who lives and moves and has Its Be-ing in us just as we live and move and have our our being in It.

Evil does indeed walk among us. But so does good. And it is good that will ultimately triumph over evil. Such is the nature of reality … even though appearances can often suggest otherwise.


Postscript. It is now some 12 days since MH17 was blown out of the sky. The Dutch and Australian investigators in charge of finding out what happened have yet to lay eyes on the wreckage or the human remains believed to remain strewn across the enormous debris field which, in the words of one frustrated official, is ‘one of the biggest open crime scenes in the world.’ As expected, Russians and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine continue to obstruct and impede a full and open independent international investigation of this dreadful tragedy. IEJ. July 29, 2014.

Floral tribute outside St Mary's Catholic Cathedral,

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

WHY THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF GOD IS CONTRADICTORY

I hope to show in this post why the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic idea of God is inherently and irredeemably contradictory. 

Now, at the outset I need to make one thing perfectly clear. When we speak of the ‘traditional' idea of God we are referring to the supposed and presumed existence of a 'supernatural,' 'infinite' and 'immortal' personal or superpersonal being who is said to be all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), all-loving (omnibenevolent) and everywhere present (omnipresent), and who, at least according to the traditional interpretation of the Christian scriptures, is said to have taken human form uniquely in the person of Jesus Christ, who traditionally is said and held by Christians to be both fully human as well as fully divine. One more thing---this infinite God is said to be entirely separate from His [sic] finite creation, even though it is asserted that it is possible for us to 'know' this God.

Here’s one reason why the traditional theistic concept of God is inherently and irredeemably contradictory. In the course of this post I will give you some other reasons as well. If a supposedly supernatural God had an existence or presence before reality, that is, before the supposed creation of all that which is, then that God must be ‘unreal’, and therefore not God. Why? Because it is impossible to postulate a reality before it was present. That’s right. 

Christian apologists and other theists postulate the existence of some ‘atemporal’ reality, but that is a meaningless proposition. Why? Because action implies multiple states, and multiple states in turn require some form of time. Now, it is asserted that God exists ‘outside’ of all time, but the God of the Bible and the Qur'an is supposed to both think and create. ‘“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD’ (Is 55:8). ‘Your thoughts are of great worth to me, O God. How many there are!’ (Ps 139:17). ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ (Gen 1:1). ‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things’ (Is 45:7). ‘That is Allah, your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things’ (Qur’an 6:102). ‘Allah is Ever-Knowing, Ever-Wise’ (Qur’an 8:71).

How, please think about all this for a moment. Thinking and creating (making) things are both time-related activities. In other words, God is supposedly timeless but also causally efficacious, that is, God can affect material objects (the latter being a time-related concept).  However, the only truly timeless things that we know are abstract objects---for example, numbers and sets---and they have no causal properties. But, God is supposedly abstract as well as having causal properties. That is a contradiction, and nothing with a contradictory nature exists or can exist. So God---at least the traditional theistic God---cannot, and therefore does not, exist.

The well-known Christian apologist William Lane Craig [pictured right], in his book Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (2002), states that ‘outside of time, God is eternal; and with creation, God has entered time’.  Well, if Craig is right, it means that God must have changed, but God, so we are told, is supposedly immutable. Now, if God is not subject to time, having entered the natural world from ‘outside’ (whatever that means, for it is impossible to conceive of anything existing ‘outside’ the universe), God can no longer be said to be supernatural or infinite.  Why? Because it is impossible to speak meaningfully of the supposed infinite acting in the finite, the supposed non-temporal acting in time or entering into time.

Here’s another contradiction that cannot be resolved. I ask you this---why would a supposedly supernatural God (again, how can we conceive of anything being ‘supernatural’) bother to create a ‘natural’ universe, assuming for the moment that the universe was ‘created.’ Did God feel a lack of something? Did God want company, or something? If so, then God was not perfect in Himself/Herself/Itself. You see, so-called creationism and perfectionism---God is said to be both creator as well as a perfect being---are mutually exclusive.

Of course, there is no such thing as the 'universe.' That's right! You see, the word 'universe' is just that---a word. It simply means the sum 'total' of all there is, with the totality of all things being what is known as a 'closed system.' Each 'thing' is a cause of at least one other 'thing' as well as being the effect of some other 'thing,' so everything is explainable by reference to everything else. End of story. 

Hence, all theological talk of the supposed need for some 'first cause' is, well, nonsense. As the Scottish-Australian philosopher Professor John Anderson [pictured left] pointed out, 'there can be no contrivance of a "universe" or totality of things, because the contriver would have to be included in the totality of things.' (In any event, the entire notion of a supposed 'Being'---the 'contriver'---whose essential attributes [for example, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience] are non-empirical is unintelligible and inherently contradictory. In any event, why would a supposedly supernatural 'contriver' bother to 'create' a natural universe, assuming (once again) that it was created?

Here’s another inconsistency, assuming you're still 'with' me. God is supposedly blameless, yet there is the supposed reality of divine punishment, hell and eternal damnation. Those two ideas don’t sit comfortably together. I much prefer the Buddhist idea that we are punished by our 'sins,' not for them. Further, the existence of gratuitous evil and suffering in the world is incompatible with the notion of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Evil or suffering is gratuitous if, in the view of reasonable persons, the world would be improved by its absence. Now, an omnipotent God would be perfectly able to create human beings that were genuinely free but who never used their freewill to do evil, but only to do good. However, it is said, at least by Christian apologists, that God knowingly created human beings who, God knew in advance, would use their freewill to do evil. I am sorry, but such a God is then morally responsible for all the evil and suffering in the world that has in fact ensued. Why? Because, as I have said, if God is all-powerful, God could have created human beings that were genuinely free, but who only used their freewill to do good. For example, a recovering alcoholic, who wishes to stay sober, chooses not to drink, one day at a time. Yes, he or she could choose to drink, but they consistently choose to exercise their freewill not to drink. If human beings can do that, then surely any decent God, who was all-loving and all-powerful, would want to create people like that. 

In any event, the God of traditional theism is far from attractive. According to the Bible, God deliberately killed every living thing on earth (Gen 7:20-24), murdered innocent children (Ex 12:29), murdered over 50,000 people because they dared to look into the Ark (1 Sam 6:19), murdered infants and ripped fetuses from the womb (Hos 13:16), and supposedly commands the death penalty for adultery (Lev 20:10) and the murder of homosexuals (Lev 20:13)---and that's just for starters. Not a very nice person, to say the least. The God of the Qur’an can be just as unlovely. Unlike the Judeo-Christian God, who is said (except by some stupid and ignorant Christian fundamentalists whose God hates 'fags' [see picture above]) to ‘hate the sin but love the sinner,’ Allah loves only the ‘good’: ‘Allah loves not transgressors’ (Qur'an 2:190); ‘He loves not creatures ungrateful or wicked’ (Qur'an 2:276); ‘Say: 'Obey Allah and His Apostle;' but if they turn back Allah loves not those who reject Faith’ (Qur'an 3:32); ‘Allah loves not those who do wrong’ (Qur'an 3:57, 140); ‘Allah loves not the arrogant, the vainglorious’ (Qur'an 4:36); ‘Say, if ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love and forgive you your sins’ (Qur'an 3:31). All I can say is, thank God for the great Baptist minister Harry Emerson Fosdick who famously wrote, ‘Better believe in no God than to believe in a cruel God, a tribal God, a sectarian God. Belief in God is one of the most dangerous beliefs a man can cherish.’ (I once spoke those words of Fosdick at a debate at the Sydney Town Hall at which Dr William Lane Craig was present. However, the organiser of the debate, St Barnabas Anglican Church, Broadway, Sydney, shamefully edited out those words from my speech in the video tape of the proceedings. The truth hurts.)

Now, if the existence of certain state of affairs is logically incompatible with the purported existence of an all-powerful and all-loving God, or if it is intrinsically improbable that those states of affairs would subsist in a universe with such a God and more probable than not that they would subsist in a universe without such a God, then there are more than good grounds for believing that such a God does not exist.

Here’s another contradiction or dilemma.  (I could give you many, many more, but that's for another day---and post.) Does God have a body? If so, where can we locate that body? You see, if God does not have a body, the alleged properties attributed to God (for example, that God is powerful, loving, good, and just) are totally misleading. Why? Because all such predicates apply to bodies whose behaviours are publicly observable. They do not apply to so-called ‘disembodied minds.’

In this post I have tried to use logic. Now, when I debate Christian apologists, they invariably assert that God is ‘above’ logic. That cannot be the case. God---or at least any concept of God---cannot be ‘above’ logic, whatever ‘above’ means. You see, the assertion that God is above logic is not an a priori proposition. Where is the theist’s proof for this assertion? In fact, the theist, although rejecting the applicability of logic, is still applying logic, albeit wrongly, in their arguments for the existence of God. The theist is tying themselves into a knot of their own making. What, I ask you, is the point of reasoning about God if the principal tool of reason---logic---is inapplicable. Never forget this---logic is about things, not thought. Logic is about how things are related to other things. In logic it is always a case of … what is. As philosopher John Anderson pointed out many times, there is only one order or level of reality such that a single logic applies to all things and how they are related to each other. There can be nothing ‘above’ or ‘below’ the proposition---not even God. If anything were above logic we simply could not trust our senses. That’s right---if God is above logic there can be no interpretation or logical extrapolation of God’s word, nor could there be any system of apologetics. For example, the various arguments for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity would immediately and totally collapse.

The theist is often a hypocrite. Theists do in fact use logic when expedient, that is, when it suits their purposes. Take, for example, the law of contradiction (that is, that anything with a contradictory nature cannot exist). The theist affirms that God cannot contradict Himself [sic]. Thus, God cannot create a rock that He [sic] can’t lift. God cannot create a round square. God cannot make the immoral moral. God may be all-powerful, says the theist, but God is still constrained by logic. If that were not the case, then there would be nothing to stop God from creating a rock so heavy that God could not lift it and then in the next moment lift it. 

In short, a God ‘above’ logic doesn’t make any sense---not that a God subject to logic does either, as I’ve tried to show. Be that as it may, the idea of a God ‘above’ logic is inconsistent with the very attributes that go to make up the traditional theistic concept of God. Reason and observation tell us that nothing can be done by anything, including God, that is not otherwise part of God’s capabilities.

Assuming, for the moment that the traditional God of theism does in fact exist, that God would not be above logic nor below it. As with morality or goodness, reason would have to be seen as part of the very nature of God. Yes, any sensible concept of God would have to accept that God does not ‘submit’ to logic nor arbitrarily ‘create’ logic. Reason would have to be seen to be part of God’s nature. A sensible believer would also have to accept that God cannot contradict His/Her/Its own nature.

Are there more sensible concepts of ‘God’? Indeed, there are. Here is a previous post of mine that may be of interest to thinking---as opposed to believing---people.

RELATED POSTS

ENACTMENT THEOLOGY

YOU’RE AN ATHEIST? THAT’S GOOD!

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

THERE WAS NO FIRST CAUSE---AND NO NEED FOR ONE

MINDFULNESS AND THE TOTALITY OF ALL THINGS

‘HMMM, ISN’T THAT A CULT?’

What is a ‘cult’? The purpose of this post is to shed some light on the meaning of this much abused and misused word ‘cult.’

Recently, I became aware that a neighbour of mine---who has little or no time for religion of any sort (which is fine with me)---was heard to say that the religious body of which I am a minister, namely, Unitarianism, was a ‘cult.’ I was quite bemused by the comment. You see, if the person in question had some definite religious convictions of their own, the comment might be understandable up to a point, but that was not the case here. The word ‘cult’ was simply being used in a pejorative sense---which is ordinarily the case---and as a weapon of some silly sort.

Well, is Unitarianism a cult? Definitely not! If anything, it's a kind of 'anti-cult.' Here’s why.

A cult almost always claims some new or special or unique revelation.  Unitarianism---also known in some places as Unitarian Universalism---does not. Also, a cult invariably invests its founders, and often its leaders as well, and their teachings and writings, with the impress of finality, if not infallibility. Unitarianism does none of those things---indeed, the whole idea of infallibility is anathema to Unitarians, not to mention bloody silly! In addition, a cult is a system of religious beliefs that replaces one’s own beliefs with its own, and gives legitimacy---sometimes blatantly, and sometimes quite subtly---only to its own teachings, such that, if a person cannot or does not conform, they are excluded whether by formal excommunication or other means. Unitarianism is and does none of the above.

Unitarianism is both a denominational and a transdenominational vehicle for all spiritual seekers, regardless of their religious affiliation or background. Unitarianism freely shares its teachings with all persons, and it has always had a broad and liberal spiritual focus.

Now, what I am about to say is very important. Unitarianism is not so much a religion per se as an approach to religion and a praxis, that is, a particular and quite distinctive way in which certain spiritual principles (such as the inherent worth and dignity of every person, a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, and the interdependent web of all existence) are engaged, applied and put into practice.

Unitarianism is not a single religion among other world religions---some scholars and commentators call it a meta-religion---but rather a way of looking at religion and spirituality, and at the many varieties of religious and spiritual experiences of the whole of humanity (including our experiences and enjoyment of music, the arts and sciences, as well as the natural world). Unitarianism is also a way of looking at life---with curiosity, openness, non-discrimination and choiceless awareness. Unitarians, being liberal-minded, like to 'think things through' in a critical, informed, disciplined, and fearless way.

Lewis B Fisher, the late 19th-century Universalist theologian, once wrote, 'Universalists are often asked to tell where they stand. The only true answer to give to this question is that we do not stand at all, we move.' I like that.

Although not a philosophy per se, Unitarianism performs a similar function to philosophy at its best in that it provides a fundamental and overall coherent apparatus for understanding and criticism, illuminating all fields of human inquiry including politics, economics, sociology, psychology, philosophy, theology, ethics, and the arts. Unitarianism provides a ‘key’---but just one key---to understanding those and other disciplines. In short, Unitarianism is a movement, a position, and an adventure in ‘continuing spiritual education’.

Unitarianism, in its more ‘modern’ form, came out of the Protestant Reformation when many people claimed the right to privately read and interpret the Bible for themselves and to set their own conscience as a test of the teachings of religion. The theological roots of Unitarianism can be found in early Judaism as well as in 16th-century Europe (in particular, Hungary, Poland and Romania) when some prominent Biblical scholars affirmed the notion that the Divine was one and indivisible, and challenged the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was uniquely and exclusively God. (Please note the important combination of those words---‘uniquely’ and ‘exclusively.’ Christian Unitarians had no problem affirming the divinity of Jesus, but his supposed deity was a different matter altogether.)

The philosophical roots of Unitarianism go back much further, and can be found in such people as the Stoics, the Epicureans, and the Skeptics, all of whom affirmed natural morality, freedom from superstition, and salvation by character.

Unitarian churches, fellowships and societies impose no particular creed, article or profession of faith upon our members and adherents. Unitarians are therefore free to explore and develop their own distinctive spirituality and are encouraged to do so in a responsible way. There is nothing to believe in Unitarianism. Indeed, most Unitarians would regard beliefs and belief-systems as impenetrable barriers to knowing truth or reality.

During the last couple of hundred years Unitarianism has expanded beyond its Christian roots with many modern day Unitarians embracing Humanism, agnosticism, atheism, various forms of theism, nontheistic forms and systems of spirituality such as Buddhism, progressive Christianity and earth-based spirituality. In short, ‘post-Christian’ Unitarianism affirms the underlying truth of open and tolerant religion---sensibly interpreted.

Unitarians boldly affirm that the sacred or holy is ordinarily made manifest in the enchantment of everyday life, and embraces all persons and things as part of an interdependent cosmic web. Unitarians seek to live together in peace and promote the highest good for all, relying upon the authority of reason, conscience and experience in order to arrive at solutions to problems in a spirit of rational humaneness.

True it is that most if not all of the mainstream Christian churches regard Unitarianism as a cult. As proof of this Unitarian churches, fellowships and societies have consistently been denied membership to the World Council of Churches and their affiliated bodies around the world. Of course, as is often said, one person's orthodoxy is another person's heresy---and vice versa. Also, please keep in mind the above mentioned definition of a cult, namely, a system of religious beliefs that replaces one’s own beliefs with its own, and a religious movement that gives legitimacy only to its own teachings, such that, if a person cannot or does not conform, they are excluded whether by formal excommunication or other means.

Now, by this definition all of the mainstream Christian churches are cults, with the Roman Catholic Church being the largest and most successful of them all. Each member has to conform and fit the denominational bed ... or else! Ditto with Sydney Anglicanism, which has become a cult within a much larger cult (the latter being the worldwide Anglican Communion). In any event, in the eyes of the law, all religions bodies are ‘sects,’ each with its own particular cultus or form of worship.

Unitarians are non-conformists in all senses of that word. They are proud to be different, and they don’t mind being called heretics. You see, the word ‘heretic’ comes from a Greek word meaning ‘one who chooses’. Unitarians choose to be different. They choose to affirm as true what, in good conscience, they are each capable of knowing and understanding.

RELATED POSTS

IS MINDFULNESS A RELIGION?

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

SO, YOU THINK YOU HAVEN'T BEEN BRAINWASHED?