Life in an Evolving World Pt.1

I just returned from a week-long spiritual retreat in the amazing Mojave desert in California.  It was one of the most significant weeks of my life.  That's a bold statement to live into but I genuinely believe that to be true.  The clarity and confidence that deepened within me is palpable.  I feel very fortunate to have been a part of such an incredible journey and to have met so many other inspiring individuals.

I am now responsible for what I've seen and experienced and while I do not know how my life will unfold from this point forward, I recognize that I now have an obligation to act on what I've seen, to bear witness to the 'glory of God,' to use theological terms.  But the 'glory' I'm referring to was not a brilliant white light or a mystical encounter, rather it was glimpsing the inconceivable potential of being a liberated human being in service of the evolutionary process that we are all a part of.

"Woah, wait.  What?"

In this deepening recognition, I am discovering a desire to shift my focus to exploring the implications of this more fully, to express more clearly what it is that I've found to be so overwhelmingly compelling.

A big part of this involves one word: evolution.  

But before that, a bit of 'enlightenment.'

For thousands of years, rare individuals have taken the leap of surrendering their lives to the 'Sacred', whether that has been expressed as God, Spirit, Emptiness, the Absolute, etc.  These rare individuals have given the rest of humanity glimpses into the possibility of something more, of a life that is radically and profoundly different from our typical ideas about what it means to be a human being.

This is no small thing.

Surrendering one's life to the Source of all life itself is certainly rare enough and yet it's nothing new.  The nature of this surrender is the same today as it was 2000 years ago and I see no reason to think it will be any different in another 2000 years, though I could be wrong.  But if I'm right, what has changed?  Is humanity the same as it has been for thousands of years?  Is the author of Ecclesiastes correct in suggesting that, "there is nothing new under the sun?" 

When I was a teenager, I remember getting excited about the discovery that within Christianity there have been, and still are, those with the conviction and passion to stand up for what the Bible says and to teach that the world - contrary to what the vast majority of scientists assert - did not evolve over billions of years, that we aren't descendents of apes and that God really did create the world in six days, which happened to have occurred only a few thousand years ago, just like it says in Genesis.

Without a word of a lie, that was inspiring stuff to someone who was struggling to reconcile their faith with conflicting accounts of reality.  I had determined that I would take the Bible at face value and believe it's stories to be factually true unless I had good reason to doubt them.  I believed God could do whatever miracles He wished and having someone scientifically explain what happened when God created the world gave me enormous confidence that my beliefs were accurate.  I still completely understand and respect this approach because it really did make sense to me and there was no apparent contradictions to face.

The story doesn't end there, however.

In time, I came to encounter other Christians who did, in fact, believe that the universe evolved over billions of years and they implicitly challenged my assumption that such a belief was at odds with the Christian faith.  I eventually came to consider that maybe God did create the world 14 billion years ago and that the belief in an evolving universe does not exclude the possibility that God was/is the Creator or 'Evolver.' 

As time went on, I came to the point where I was quite unconcerned with whether or not the world had evolved over billions of years or whether it was created in six days.  To me, the important point seemed to be that God was the primary actor and that there is inherent meaning in being alive in the world today.  Since I believed that I couldn't possibly know with certainty the exact truth of how this all began, I chose to let it go and became interested in focusing more on what the Bible has to say about being a human being here and now and about who God is.  I recall many conversations with others who expressed a similar perspective.  It also seemed quite reasonable.

I recall watching a program several months ago that was examining the church's reaction to the work of Charles Darwin and whether evolutionary theory is incompatible with faith in God.  In the end, the host concluded that the two were indeed compatible and that it was only a relatively small but vocal group of Christians who strongly resisted this possibility and refused to accept evolutionary theory as a more truthful explanation for the world around us.  What was their reasoning?  They believed that such a theory would undermine the Christian faith.

They were half right.

I no longer hold to the creationist idea of a 'young earth' or that God created the world in six literal days but what I do appreciate deeply from those who maintain these beliefs is their insistence that what we believe about this does matter.  And what these often criticized, impassioned advocates for a literal reading of the Bible do understand is that there are profound implications to how we answer this question of how we all ended up here.

In fact, the scientific materialists who deny the existence of God on the basis of evolutionary theory - and who are viewed as the arch-nemeses of creationists -  share this point in common; they recognize that the conclusion one comes to regarding this issue really does matter.  Unfortunately, both groups adhere to unreasonably limited implications within their respective conclusions.  Saying that an evolving world means there is no God is equally as ridiculous as saying that a belief in God must mean that the world was created in six days.

But saying that it doesn't make any difference how we got here is no less absurd.

When carefully scrutinized, the question of whether the world has evolved over billions of years or whether it emerged several thousand years ago has the potential to radically shift the way we view all of life.*  Regardless of which understanding we choose to embrace, I hope that its potential significance is becoming clear.

This was a longer introduction to the topic than I had intended but it's going to lay the groundwork for where we're going.  And where we're going is huge, no matter what ideas you may already have about all of this.  It's up to you what you do with anything I share but I guarantee that if you stick with me you will catch a glimpse of something more profound than you may now realize.

Is that an audacious claim?  I suppose it is.  I guess you'll have to wait and see whether I can live up to it, though I hope you do.





* I've refrained from including the traditional Eastern belief that the material world is eternal and cyclical but it can readily be thrown into the mix, as well.

"Because the Bible says so!" Part Deux

I want to capitalize on my recent 'fame.' Or 'infamy,' depending on how one looks at it.  First of all, thanks to everyone for reading what I had to say about such a controversial topic such as sexuality and an extra thanks to everyone willing to engage in some form of dialogue about the issue, whether with me or with someone else, whether agreeing with my perspective or not.

For me, it's seldom the individual issues that are most interesting but rather the bigger picture.  That's why I don't delve into a lot of 'real-world' issues in this space.  I do have ideas about more practical concerns but what I see as being a potentially more significant yet often overlooked area of discussion is the way that we think about these issues.  Although who knows?  Maybe this will be the start of a trend where I devote more time to exploring these kinds of questions and presenting alternative ways of seeing them?

I also want to capitalize on my 'absolute-most-popular-post' (according to my blog's internal statistician) and potentially create the most popular and famous blog post of all time.  I'm in it for the money, as you can tell.  Next week I'll be having cocktails with Brad Pitt, I can see it now...

The funny thing is that my 'most popular post' doesn't contain much from me, mostly just a quote:

"So often the claim of sola scriptura is in reality this: the Bible as interpreted by me, or by my group, or by the leaders of my group, or by a small part of the whole church during one specific period of history and in a certain cultural context, or by my denomination, or by this or that school of thought." - Peter Toon, 'Who runs the Church?'

I'm actually willing to consider that due to the number of spam comments that ended up on this post it's not actually the most popular, just the most viewed by robots.

 Now believe me, I'm not trying to pander to the insensitive 'robot' demographic in writing this new post.  I'm genuinely much more concerned with humans, who may or may not agree with - or have any interest in - the unbelievably profound implications in this one brief sentence.  While my perspective is dramatically different in many ways from when I first encountered this quote almost four years ago, I find its message as relevant and significant as ever - perhaps even more so.

The issue of sexuality, like all other issues, is not really about the issue itself; it's about morality, what we deem as being the best or the 'right' way of being human.  There are many different ways to approach this question and that's the part I want to draw attention to.  Even those of us who approach it from a particular spiritual tradition, like Christianity, need to  appreciate the diversity of perspectives found within.  There is no singular entity called 'Christianity.'

For example:

How do you like your baptism?  Infant or adult?  What about communion/eucharist?  Is it really becoming the body of Jesus or is it just a metaphor? 

Ah, those don't seem like moral issues.  I understand.  What about women being allowed to speak in church, let alone be a pastor or priest?  That's a bit closer.  What about birth control?  Or how about whether or not it's okay to lie to the Nazi troops at your door about the Jewish people that are hiding in your attic in order to avoid systematic genocide?  

These are all issues that have no unanimous consensus as to the best or 'right' answer, even for people who claim that the Bible is the sole basis for all of their moral and ethical decisions and understanding.  How do we deal with these kind of internal inconsistencies of understanding?

The easiest solution is to say that anyone who disagrees with our opinion is wrong, that they have misunderstood the Bible or are ignoring its authority.  This is fine if we want to insulate ourselves with unreasonable arrogance but I don't think the vast majority of us are actually interested in that, though it's easy to do so without realizing it, as I can attest to for myself.  


Here's where I want to take that initial quote even further:

There is no such thing as sola scriptura.  It doesn't exist.

I mean, it's a concept and so it exists as a concept but I think it's a fundamentally flawed concept that doesn't reflect reality.  What I mean by that is that the Bible (or any sacred text) does not exist in a vacuum.  It never has and it never will.  There is no meaningful way, in my opinion, that the phrase 'scripture alone' can be used without a lengthy list of amendments that express the notion that scripture is, in fact, not really alone at all.  Without our finite human perception and interpretation, the Bible is just a bunch of meaningless, squiggly lines on a page. 

If nothing else, it's a good way of explaining the 20,000 plus denominations with Christianity. 

This is no small matter, though I don't think it's all bad.  It means we have more responsibility than we'd sometimes like to believe.  The Bible has been used by some to support the existence of slavery as well as by others to support its abolition.  Do you think one of those interpretations is more or less responsible than the other?  I think it's an interesting question.

So how do we and how should we approach the Bible or any other sacred text?

An important piece to this puzzle begins to fall into place when we begin to realize that it's not only that there are many ways of seeing and interpreting the same thing, it's that we're not even necessarily seeing the same thing.  

I'll unpack this later.  For now, feel free to share your thoughts and/or questions.

Gay and Christian

Growing up in my church, differing sexual orientations were seldom discussed but I always felt that heterosexuality or being 'straight' was the only appropriate one, the only one approved of and condoned by God. 

It was never a huge issue, it just seemed as though being gay was either sinful or disordered or a combination of the two.  Being called 'gay' or a 'fag' was a joke of derision in my teens, though a light-hearted one.  But, of course, no one wanted to actually be identified as gay and those who genuinely were gay faced much derision.  

While my stance on the issue softened over time, I was unwilling to consider that being gay was alright, let alone good.  Through a greater awareness and ownership of my own struggles with sexuality - expressed most visibly through a psychological and emotional dependence on pornography - I conceded that being 'gay' didn't mean being 'evil,' only that it was simply another 'sin of the flesh' that needed to be dealt with in the same way as any other negative sexual pattern or disposition. 

I remember seeing on the news where members of Westboro baptist church and their crazy ol' leader, Fred Phelps, would picket all manner of things with signs like, 'God Hates Fags.'  It's interesting - and encouraging - that even the most conservative, anti-homosexual religious folks denounce these kinds of things.  It seems to cross a line in saying that God hates you if you're gay.  That is hardly the Gospel I remember hearing.

"God loves you as you are." 

That's what I remember hearing.  Although there was almost always this implicit addition:

"But God doesn't want you to be gay or think it's okay, he just loves you anyway.   Love the sinner and hate the sin, right?  Or, well, if it's not a sin, it's at least pretty weird.  Can we agree on that?"

I can't pinpoint any great "Aha" moment when my perspective shifted dramatically, though I wish I could.  Makes for a better story.  A significant part of my movement in that direction was due to my wonderfully confrontational and liberal girlfriend at the time, who really pushed me out of my comfort zone to ask more difficult questions about my own faith and be more critical with some of these conclusions I was holding onto. 

Another huge factor was my own education, taking a sociology class on the construction of gender and its roles in society, viewing sexuality from a sociological perspective and then allowing that to inform my own understanding.  It became increasingly apparent to me that even if homosexuality was to be considered 'sinful,' it was not simply a choice that someone makes.  There's still a debate as to what causes differing sexual orientations, whether genetics, individual and cultural conditioning, environmental factors, or some combination, but I would hope that virtually no educated person nowadays believes it's as simple as mere choice.

"It may not be a choice, per se, but that doesn't make it right either.  Sociopaths may be neurologically wired to lack empathy and remorse but that doesn't mean it's okay for them to kill people, right?"

The next shift of seeing homosexuality as little more than an aberrant expression of 'normal' sexuality, rather than sinful in any way, happened as I began to question the very validity of my understanding of the Bible itself.  I know that there are people who have studied the relevant passages in the Bible relating to this issue and have come to the conclusion that  homosexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation.  That is a noble undertaking and I commend such individuals and their efforts.  For me, however, reconciling the Bible and homosexuality became a task that seemed more and more unnecessary for my own understanding. 

Through my own exploration of the nature of the Bible as I sacred text, I became content with the possibility that some of the Bible's authors may have been 'anti-gay' and viewed it as sinful, yet without needing to conclude that is also God's perspective.  But once you start questioning the Bible's authority regarding one issue it's a slippery slope and soon you're questioning everything.  Whoever may have said that, they were correct.  And I couldn't be happier having come to that realization.

From my point of view, abandoning an attempt to justify one's stance on a controversial issue with the Bible has freed me to engage these issues with greater critical inquiry, making use of multiple perspectives that are valid and quite unrelated to Christianity.  As I said, it's certainly possible to critically examine the Biblical text and come to the conclusion that it does not condemn a homosexual orientation but this depends greatly on the nature of the examination, the examiner, and the particular approach one is taking. 

That's all well and good but I'm personally not that interested anymore in approaching it from so narrow a view, though I do believe it's still important work, especially in providing an opportunity to discuss the issue on the same playing field as those who have a much 'higher,' more traditional view of scripture than myself, though it's an admittedly tougher battle to fight. 

Unfortunately, even though the overwhelming majority of psychologists and mental health professionals in the U.S. do not view homosexuality as an 'illness' to be cured or a 'condition' that impairs their moral functioning, this information is often seen as irrelevant by those who make the Bible the "the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine and conduct," though what that means is decidedly unclear.  From this point of view, if one believes the Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong then it is always wrong, no matter what anyone or everyone else might say.  Thankfully, the Bible isn't so clear as to make that conclusion unquestionably obvious.

And heck, even if God did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because the locals were having anal sex with everything that moved, maybe he loosened up a bit after a while?  I mean, he told Peter to break the Law and eat some pork so if God can chill out, maybe we can, too.


I'm being facetious but I think I'll put that in my tagline on facebook.  That should guarantee some page views.  


In the end, I didn't think this was a relevant issue for me anymore.  My normally tacit support of homosexuality and the rights of the LGBT community in general is not something I think I've ever consciously advocated for (until now) as it mostly fell off of my radar once I came to accept these orientations as alternative portals for human relationship and love to be explored and expressed.  I still notice homophobic thoughts and feelings creeping into my awareness at times but I'm a work in progress, as we all are.  Though I believe I've come to a conclusion about this for myself, I'm realizing that this issue is not one that is settled in the minds of many others, especially for many of those within the Christian tradition.  


The reason I'm 'pro-gay' is not because I don't want to step on anyone's freedom of expression or because I think 'doing what seems right for you' is a solid moral compass.  No, I respect and (am learning to) honour homosexuality and bisexuality as legitimate orientations not because of cultural pressure or a naive, relativistic acceptance but because of a rational and critical inquiry into the issue motivated by a desire to discover what's most true, which has led me to an enormous amount of evidence - from various sources representing various persepectives - affirming this.  


My renewed interest was sparked by my desire for more and more people to discover spirituality as being relevant to their existence and even though I no longer exclusively identify myself within the Christian tradition, I still believe that it has an enormous amount of potential to make a difference for the betterment of humanity.  Unfortunately, the stance of many churches and Christians, outspoken or not, who view homosexuality negatively is not only harmful and alienating to the LGBT community, it also stands as a testimony of cultural irrelevance and close-mindedness to interested spiritual seekers, gay or straight, who have already moved beyond such a limited perspective.


I'm not suggesting that everyone adopt my own view but I am suggesting that people, especially those within the Christian tradition, reassess the significance of this issue and to consider the negative consequences of remaining hostile or indifferent as well as the incredible potential to express greater love to the world in a new and profound way.

Absolutely Absolute

Despite how I may appear (or try to appear) as some sort of philosopher, I have very little formal training in philosophy.  Actually, I have zero formal training in philosophy.  But one doesn't need formal training (though it can certainly help!) to develop in an area and I think my lack of training has the benefit of rooting my philosophizing in simpler terms, more predisposed to being accessible to others who, like myself, lack any formal training in the subject. 

If you think my writing is not so accessible, just try to imagine how much more complicated it would be if I used even more academic language and then be grateful.  Having said that, I'm always interested in trying to present things more understandably so any comments or suggestions are appreciated!  (probably)

I say this because I want to be clear that I'm not an expert on the subject and that there are, no doubt, all kinds of subtle and gross logical inconsistencies to my thoughts and reasoning that I'm totally unaware of.  I'm okay with this.  While I seldom get excited to have inconsistencies or limitations in my thinking pointed out, if one is interested in the search for truth then this kind of humble approach (however reluctant) is of significant importance, I believe. 


When I share in this space I may be trying to argue certain things as being true and others false, or some things as being more important than others.  I think this is valuable in the process of 'truth-questing' and while I do make arguments at times, I also recognize they might be wrong or at least only partially right.  I need other voices and sources of information to help shape my perspective in a direction of 'more true.'

In this sense, I am growing to love debate and discussion more and more because of how valuable it can be to reveal perspectives that we just can't see from our limited point of view.  None of us has all of the truth.  It seems unlikely that could ever be the case.  But the more we engage with one another and share our perspectives, the greater our potential for understanding more truth becomes.
But why does truth matter?  Why is this important?  Because if there is no truth then

Exactly.

That wasn't a typo, if there exists no truth of any kind then there can be no distinction between what does or does not represent reality more than anything else, therefore communication becomes essentially irrelevant and impossible.  But, ironically, even this very conclusion is meaningless if there is no truth.  So to do any real inquiry I think we need to accept that truth exists, that some things describe reality more than others. 

Beyond this, we need to distinguish between relative and absolute truth and one way to do so would be to say that whatever is limited, conditional and changeable is relative and whatever is unlimited, unconditional, and unchangeable is absolute. 

And now for a profound revelation:

The only thing that is absolute is that which is absolute. 

Wow, profound, isn't it?!?  I know it seems painfully obvious but bear with me.

Everything that isn't absolute is relative.  And, guess what?  That which is not relative is absolute. 

So how do we know what's relative and what's absolute?  This is the easy part.  All you need to do is imagine anything at all, anything your heart desires.  Got it?  Okay.  And now the secret formula: it's relative.  Ta da!

Every idea you can conjure is relative.  "Surely there are some ideas that are absolute!" you say.  Not so.  The very fact that ideas can change means they're not absolute.  However, even though they're relative doesn't mean they're irrelevant or worthless. It just means they're relative; they're not that which is absolute.

Why is any of this important?  I think there are even more practical answers than this but I found this quote inspiring:

"Although the Absolute is sometimes referred to by such epithets as the Void, Ever-Darkness etc. and is beyond intellectual comprehension, still, from the intellectual point of view it is the most profound concept in the whole realm of philosophy. The fact that it is called 'Unknowable' does not mean that it is beyond the range of philosophical or religious thought and something on which thinking is impossible or undesirable. The very fact that it is the heart and the basis of the universe should make it the most intriguing object of enquiry within the realms of the intellect."

~I.K. Taimni, 'Man, God and the Universe'

But what about truth?

Good question.