How I Became a Humanist #9: Understanding the Bible and How to Use It #1

I was brought up to believe that Christians have a duty to read the Bible.  From age 8, I read it regularly.  The funny thing is, no one ever told me how to read the Bible.  In church, we sometimes went through books, but often we had lessons in which the teacher would bounce around the Bible from verse to verse.  In my preteen years, when I was taught how to preach, I was given a concordance and told that I could look up topics and words to support what I had to say.  This way of reading the Bible is common in churches that grew up on American soil during the 1800s and afterward.

One of the first serious Bible classes I took in undergrad was a course in how to read the Bible.  In it, we learned a lot of things that changed the way I saw scripture and how Christians ought to use it.

One of the first things I learned was the Bible was not originally written with chapters and verses.  Admittedly, I already knew this, but I'd never taken the time to think about what it meant.  I'd also never taken the time to consider the fact that most of the Bibles we read don't just have those additions, they also have labeled subheadings.  Sometimes the subheadings explain the meaning of the scripture.  Even when they don't, they separate one story from another in a way that the author of the text might not have intended.

Matthew Chatper 5 - 6 NIV (Notice the Subtitles)

It will surprise some readers to know that chapters were not commonplace in the Bible until the 900s (though versions with chapters showed up in the 4th century), and that verses didn't become commonplace around the 1500s, which is why there are a few places in the Bible where Catholics and Protestants separate verses differently (the process hadn't completed when the Reformation started). (More Information)

Obviously, concordances like the ones we use today couldn't exist without verses.  The Bible wasn't written to be used in the way that Evangelicals use it - topically.  It was written book by book, and the books were meant to be read as wholes.  Imagine for a moment that a friend of yours is trying to convince you of something I want to say to you, but instead of giving you several paragraphs from me, he takes a sentence from my writing here, a sentence there and combines them to support his intended message.  Can you be sure that I would agree with his message?  Taking time to think about how the Bible was written and originally delivered to us forced me to think about how to read it well and to not force it to say whatever I might want it to.

One of the other things I learned, probably in a history class, is that the printing press didn't exist in a form useful to the masses before the mid 1400s.  In order to copy books, you needed a scribe to write down every single letter of every single word.  Imagine how long it would take to write a copy of the whole Bible - and that would be just one copy.  If you wanted another copy, the scribe would have to repeat the entire process.  Books were really expensive.  A copy of the Bible could cost more than the average person would make in his entire life.

Early Christians didn't own copies of the Bible.  In fact, since books were inaccessible to most people, the average person had no reason to learn how to read.  And so, he didn't.  Instead, just like there were scribes to make copies of books, there were professional readers who would read texts to audiences.  This is why Mark 13:14 says, "Let the reader understand."  Mark wants to make sure that the reader, obviously not you or I, understands.  For the first 1500 years of Christianity, the Bible was inaccessible to the average Christian not simply because of persecution from the Catholic Church, but because a single book was too expensive to buy and the average person couldn't read anyway.

The people who taught this to me rarely questioned what this meant for the Churches of Christ and other Evangelical Churches, but I did.  It occurred to me that if our churches couldn't have even existed in their current form with their current assumptions for the first 75% of Christian history, then we must have some false assumptions about what is required to be Christian.  Clearly, reading the Bible regularly isn't something God expected of the average Christian, otherwise he would have waited to send Jesus until the 1500s, or somehow inspired society with an efficient printing press much earlier.  God saw no need to intervene.

The Bible was originally handwritten.  This is a cleaned up version of Koine Greek.  The earliest versions didn't have dots or spaces between the words, which sometimes created confusion for copying or translating scribes.

I knew this was a problem for the Churches of Christ, but I didn't realize how much this information changed my perspective.  Looking back, I realize that I no longer trusted the Churches of Christ to interpret scripture.  Our founding assumption that God wanted us to all interpret it personally seemed to be false.  Moreover, we were using it in a way that early Christians couldn't have, with chapters, verses, concordances and cherry-picking.  

The Zoroastrians Part 2: A Religion in Transition

ZAMWI's building form the outside

I walked into the ZAMWI's building (Zoroastrian Association of Metropolitan Washington Inc.).  To my left were bathrooms.  To my right was a hallway that led to a room, that I later found out will soon be their sanctuary.  Ahead of me was a wide doorway that opened into an auditorium.

I stepped into the auditorium to see people gathering.  The room was long and rectangular with high ceilings.  It looked more like a dining hall than a place for religious gatherings.  I wasn't sure what to think.  I looked around to see people of various ethnicities gathered about.  Most of the people had some kind of Persian background.  They were Iranian, Pakistani, Afghan and Indian.  There were a few people of European ancestry in the room as well.  Most of them had come to Zoroastrianism through marriage.

As I began to talk to some of the people I learned a lot about their perceptions of religion.  A woman who had grown up in India talked about her view of religion.  "In India, we worship each other's gods.  It's not about believing in them, it's a way of respecting each other.  Before the British came, Muslims, Hindus and other got along well.  The British divided us."  The development of the Sikh religion makes me question how accurate that statement was, but it's true that people of differing belief systems usually get along until some power-hungry person comes along and amplifies divisions to gain power.

Their auditorium is built like a dining hall.  During class chairs and a podium were present.

I helped the community prepare for their service.  As the service began, everyone put white hats on their head.  They had extras and I followed suit.  The children assembled in chairs at the front of the auditorium and the adults stood around almost in a circle.  A woman made announcements.  After this, the priest spoke.  His message focused on the children.  He told them to

• Greet God in the morning and at night
• Make their beds
• Wash their dishes
• Do their part at home, school and elsewhere

The simple message took about 5 minutes.  After this he blessed one of the children.  I think it was for the child's birthday.  When this portion of the service was over, everyone grabbed hands for a quick prayer.  After the prayer, we went to class.  There wasn't a worship service in the way Christians would think of one, just the short lesson, the prayer and then class.

The class, too, was unlike anything I've ever had the opportunity to witness.  The group I met with was discussing what they ought to study together in the future.  They'd agreed to study the Gathas (the central part of the Zoroastrian text), but were discussing whether or not to focus on anything else in their studies.  Everyone agreed that the Gathas were the most important part of their tradition.  These are the oldest sections.  They're attributed to Zoroaster himself.  These portions of the text, as I understand it, are purely monotheistic and don't emphasize the rituals that later came to be associated with Zoroastrianism.

A framed rug for the sanctuary.  On the left is the king, on the right Zoroaster - the Holy Spirit hovers over each

The question in the group was how tightly to hold onto the things that had been added to the religion in the thousands of years since Zoroaster had received his revelation.  The most radical of the members believed that the rituals could be completely done away with.  Others disagreed and were in fact working to turn one of the rooms into a kind of sanctuary where rituals could be performed by a priest.

During class, I asked how one becomes a Zoroastrian.  The response was interesting.  I learned that no one could tell me whether I was or wasn't a Zoroastrian and that if I wanted to attend their meetings as a Zoroastrian that I could.  I asked whether everyone would except me.  "Most people here would," I was told.  Most of the clerics in India wouldn't.  I don't recall them saying anything in particular about the community in Iran.

What I observed was a community searching for itself.  I asked and the observation was affirmed.  "Zoroastrianism used to be associated with Persia, but that doesn't exist any more," I was told.  They were trying to decide what it meant to be Zoroastrian without a state or even a completely unifying culture.  It was interesting to see this conversation in person.  I wondered what Mary Boyce would have thought.

A Statue of the Holy Spirit to be used in their sanctuary in the future

While the Zoroastrians aren't evangelistic, they were more open to people joining than I expected.  I wondered if they were thinking what I think.  "It would be a pity if this tradition died.  It's one of the most important religious traditions in world history, even if most people today don't know about it."  I expect they do think this, though it's probably more personal to them than it is to me.

Judging Faith: Golden Plates and the Virgin Birth

"Don't judge unless you want to be judged, because the standard you use to judge others is going to be used to judge you." - Jesus of Nazareth

While being Mormon is more socially acceptable than it was a decade or two ago, Mormon beliefs are still looked down upon by Christians and non-Christians alike.  As an example, the Broadway show, The Book of Mormon, made fun of the religion in a way that would not have been acceptable if the show had been about Jews or most other religious minorities.

There are several reasons why both Christians and non-Christians have significant issues with the Latter Day Saints.  Christians have trouble accepting additions to their scriptures, Mormons have several additional books that they consider equal or superior to the Bible.  Religious skeptics are hard on  Mormonism because Joseph Smith was a known huckster before he became the prophet of Mormonism.  Other people are annoyed at their door-to-door evangelism.  There are any number of other issues that people tend to make fun of the Latter Day Saints - it all goes together hand-in-hand.  My biggest criticism of Mormonism is the poorly written scriptures that are supposed to have originally been written by different authors, but aside from those taken directly from Isaiah, all look to be written by the same author.  #LiteraryCriticism

Whatever the criticism, the level of ridicule hurled at Latter Day Saints seems unfair to me.  Are their beliefs so much stranger than those of others?  Never mind whatever beliefs comes to mind.  When discussing faith all ideas become relative.  It is just as impossible to prove a virgin birth as it is to prove golden plates.  And neither idea is more plausible than the other.  It only seems so because one is more familiar to us.

Growing up, I heard Church of Christ apologists bash the Latter Day Saints by stating that archaeology questioned their claims concerning Jews on the North American continent.  Those same apologists cast doubt on any archaeology, geology or any other form of science that questioned their own faith sometimes saying, "absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence" or something like that.  The irony of this was completely lost on them.

If we are honest people, we have two choices, we can resort to faith or not.  If we do it is dishonest to judge others who do the same.  Once we believe in a Virgin Birth, we have no right to ridicule those who believe impossible things with no evidence.

How I Became a Humanist #8: Charismatic Me

During my time at Emanuel's House, I fell under the influence of several Christians with Charismatic beliefs.  I hadn't grown up open to the idea of God being so active in people's lives.  The Churches of Christ teach that God no longer directly heals the sick, especially not through spiritual gifts.  I can't tell you how many times I heard people pray for God to "guide the doctor's hands."  The understanding seemed to be that God worked miracles through every day events.  Admittedly, I never heard anyone pray for God to "guide the combustion engine," before road trips.

Through conversation, I became convinced that the Church of Christ idea that spiritual gifts died in the first century was bad interpretation.  There is a verse in 1 Corinthians 13 that says that spiritual gifts will cease when all things are made perfect.  The Churches of Christ interpret this to mean, "when the Bible is canonized."  Paul clearly means "at the resurrection." After all, the scripture says that we will know fully, in other words, we'll know more than the people who met Jesus in the flesh.  Knowing fully isn't something that happens on earth, even if you've got a leather bound Bible.  Of course, the reader is free to disagree.

On account of this, and of me finding my sister, I became convinced that God was active in our personal lives - that he answered prayers and that spiritual gifts may still exist.  I never claimed to have such gifts, but I did feel as though God spoke to me now and then.

Me late 2001

No doubt this idea will seem strange to some people, but I think I can explain it in a way that makes sense. Imagine for a moment that you've lost your keys.  You've looked all over the place for them; you've traced your steps.  You're about to be late for work and then it occurs to you to clear your mind.  Upon clearing your mind you don't just see, but feel exactly where they are.

Hearing from God is kind of like this, only you believe that you are being told things that you couldn't have known otherwise.  I once had the following experience.  My friend had just been suspended from school for having a substance in her room that she wasn't allowed to have - this was a Christian school, remember.  She was incredibly distraught over this.

On a whim, I decided to call her on the pay phone outside my room.  It was one of those years that men were living on the first floor of Alma Gatewood hall.  My friend decided that I should come out and visit her, that it might even help things with her family.  They were important people at both the school and at church.  They were livid.  

She gave me directions to her house.  On my way there, I realized that I'd lost the directions.  This was before the era of cellphones and for those who don't know me I am terribly absent minded.

Nevertheless, I remembered every single turn and made it to the right house.  I even remembered the address.  What followed was a rather dramatic moment, at least for a college student.  I had the opportunity not only to minister to my friend, but also to her family.  And I felt God's presence throughout the whole thing - even to the point of getting direct instructions.  My friend needed things from her room, which required that I find her roommate.  I didn't have to look for her.  I felt led to a particular building, Barbier Hall, and her roommate was there.

The Cross in the Woods

This wasn't the only time this happened.  I often heard God telling me what to do, and weirdly, things often worked out.  To this day, I couldn't tell you whether or not something supernatural was going on or whether I was experiencing confirmation bias.  Either seems plausible.

During this time in my life, everything was based around religion.  I woke up to God, I went to bed to God.  I picked up people who were stranded or having trouble with their cars.  If someone needed something, I either bought it for them or gave them the money if I had it.  Whatever happened, I believed that God was in charge and that my job was only to trust and be the best person I could be.  I wasn't perfect at this, of course, but I strove to be.  I was incredibly evangelistic - but I was also tolerant of people with different views.

Certainly, this period wasn't the height of my knowledge or study, but it was the height of my personal spirituality in the way most Christians would see it.  The next several years would see a gradual waning of this spirituality with ever increasing skepticism.  This begins with my biblical studies at Rochester College.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a good time to talk about my goal in writing this series.  Humanists reading this will assume that I'm making a case for God.  In later segments, Christians will assume that I'm making an argument against God.  We live in a culture where most stories are meant to sway us to one perspective or another.  I want to create understanding.  This demands both that I explain why I believed in God so strongly and also why I came to abandon those beliefs.  If I have time, I may someday also write about my years as a Humanist and what I've come to believe now.  We're always learning - it's one of the reasons I think it is silly to condemn people for believing one thing or another.

My Neighbor's Faith: Diversity in the Latter Day Saints

Typical LDS picture in DC Temple

Several decades ago, the Latter Day Saints could have been described as a racist church.  The validity of their theological reasons for this and the convenient timing of the revelation relieving them of this charge is not the topic of this post.  However, it is important to know that before the Civil Rights movement, the Latter Day Saints taught that people of color were under a kind of curse from God that forbade them from participating in upper-level priesthood roles.  During this era, the LDS leadership received a revelation that God had removed the curse.

Three of the four sisters I spoke with that the visitors center were of Hispanic descent.  Two of them spoke fluent Spanish as was indicated on their name tags, which instead of saying "sister so-and-so", said "hermana so-and-so"  The young people I saw in the building were people various racial backgrounds.  I had two impressions.  (1) Part of the reason there was so much diversity was to reflect the DC culture.  The goal is to be able to connect with and evangelize to whoever walks in the door.  (2) The LDS is becoming a global church and it's younger population is starting to reflect that diversity.

I saw the sum of all these things in the photos on the walls.  Pictures of younger Mormons reflected a lot of racial diversity.  However, the pictures of senior church leadership, the Presidents and Apostles showed an all white leadership (which does not reflect a global church).  The stark contract reflects the radical change in Mormon attitudes towards race over the last few decades.  I expect that within a decade there will be Apostles and Presidents of color.

LDS 12 Apostles

One could judge the Latter Day Saints for their previous views on race, but most churches behaved similarly whether their theology defended it or not - many of them did use the Bible to defend their behavior.  The claim to be the one true church alongside convenient revelation may spark skepticism, nevertheless they should be credited with significant progress towards racial diversity within their ranks.  This is not an easy change to make.

How I Became a Humanist #7: Dan's Death

Dan was a member of our prayer group.  I didn't know him well, but we prayed together every week. We also confessed our sins to one another....

Joe, myself and a few others had just come back from a Skillet concert.  As we drove towards Barbier parking lot, we noticed several cars parked haphazardly around Dearborn Commons.  Through the window of the building I could see people quivering and hugging.  They looked to be crying.  Joe parked his car in Barbier and I headed over to Dearborn Commons.  There had been an accident.  Some of the students from the school had died.  Rochester College is small enough that all of the students tend to know each other - this is especially true of the students who live on campus.  You get to a point where you can recognize a person from half-way across campus, in the dark, simply by observing their gait.  Students from small liberal arts colleges will understand.

Ferndale/Hoggatt Halls and Dearborn Commons

Seeing one's own mortality in another's death affects everyone differently.  All the students and faculty were moved by the event in their own ways.  I'd had some things happen in my life over the last year or so that made me believe that following God as a Christian was the only thing that really mattered.  With Dan's death, I took religion to a whole new level.  Within about a month of Dan's death, I'd changed my major to religious studies/communication.  I began spending all of my spare time studying religion and doing spiritual things.  I read the Bible cover-to-cover three times over the next year.  This doesn't include the readings I did for classes or sermons.  It also doesn't include the readings I did with whatever young woman I happened to be dating.  Yeah, I was a hot date.

This was all happening at about the same time Emanuel's House was being born.  I was surrounded by people who were experiencing similar things.  It all fed on itself.  When the next semester hit and I began taking Bible, theology and church history classes, I went from being a sub-par student to finding myself with over a 3.0 GPA.  Soon after I was on the Dean's List.  This was a big deal for me.  Academic achievement was not a concern growing up.  The truth is, I didn't care about it even then.  I just happened to love my studies so much that an evening in the library was anything but a chore.

Like this Bible is highlighted, mine were always highlighted with comments written in the margins.  

Over the next three years, several things grew out of my religious intensity and my studies.  At first, I became something of a Charismatic Christian.  I began to ditch most of concern for Church of Christ doctrines, minus the sacraments and a preference for taking the first century Christianity seriously.  I became obsessed with biblical studies, Church history and with understanding the various expressions of Christianity.  This curiosity eventually led me to study both philosophy and other religions.  I'll write about all of these things and their affect on my faith in subsequent posts. 

My Neighbor's Faith: Marriage and Family in the Mormon Faith (LDS Temple in DC)

Visitor's Center in Salt Lake

Several years ago, the Army sent me to Salt Lake City for training.  While there, I visited a Mormon ward that some of my relatives attend.  I also happened to stop by the Tabernacle and the Temple Visitor's Center.  It was beautiful and they had lots of historical artifacts pertaining to the faith.

My visits left no doubt in my mind that the Mormons strongly value family.  At almost every encounter someone would ask me, "Don't you want to live with your family forever?"  They seemed to think that this was an innate human desire.  One could see in all places that the Mormons marry young and that they're encouraged to have big families.  Even at the restaurants in Salt Lake, the tables are elongated to fit larger than average sized families.

LDS Temple in DC

Visitor's Center in DC

When I walked into the visitor's center, I was introduced two two sisters who showed me around and answered my questions.  One of the things they were proud to show me was a 3D printed model of the inside of a Mormon Temple.  Presently, there are only two of these models in the world, one in DC and the other in Salt Lake City.

The sisters explained several of the rooms in the temple.  They focused on the rooms for marriage ceremonies.  The Latter Day Saints temple marriage ceremonies seal a marriage for eternity.  They believe that if you marry in the temple, that you and your partner will be partners eternally.  You can do this with your children as well, and then you and your whole family will be together eternally.

3D Printed model of LDS Temple

The first thing that occurred to me when I heard this was, "Okay, but what if you decide at 40 that you don't want to live with this spouse for eternity?  What if a lifetime is long enough?  What if you divorce?"  I asked whether the Latter Day Saints encourage their young to put off temple marriage until they're certain that they've married the right person.  "We usually perform the wedding in the temple."  The first wedding is usually the temple wedding with state papers signed afterward.  This struck me as odd, especially since the Mormons tend to marry so young.  I wonder how they rate their marriages in surveys when compared to other groups.  I haven't bothered to look this up.

The reason Latter Day Saints value family so much, even in the afterlife, has to do with their view of God.  As mentioned in a previous post, they believe that God was once a man like us.  He is still a man today.  At some point during our discussion my jaw dropped.  "Wait a minute," I said.  "You believe that God has a wife!" I was excited to have figured this out for myself.  "We do," I was told.  "It's not something we like to talk about.  God loves his wife so much and doesn't want people taking her name in vane or treating her rudely."

The Book of Mormon: the Primary LDS revelation

Whatever one thinks of this, it coheres theologically with the rest of LDS beliefs.  God wants them to have sealed families just like He did.  He also wants them to be fruitful and multiply, just like He did.  This is what beings made in the Image of God are supposed to do.  And like Him, if they do things right, they mature to be like Him.

As I thought about their theology, I couldn't help but wonder what life is like in the typical Mormon home.  How are their families better off compared with non-Mormon families?  How are they worse off?  I expect that with bigger families, there's a better ability to create intra-family self-reliance.  This might explain the libertarian streak among Latter Day Saints.  As the same time, there has to be a lot of pressure on women to have children.  What about the women who don't want to be mothers?  What about the women who aren't able?

The Problem with Failed Seals

The other thing I noticed was this.  Sealing your family members is supposed to mean that you are together forever.  However, if your family members fall away from the faith or are less than decent Mormons, they may find themselves on a different level of heaven than the rest of the family.  This seemed contradictory to me.  After all, if you're on the same level of heaven then you're already together and sealing should be irrelevant.  On the other hand, if different levels of heaven can divide families then the seal isn't very effective. I write this less as a criticism than in hopes that someone can clear it up for me.  Any LDS folks out there reading this?  Feel free to chime in.

Even if it can't be cleared up.  I don't see this as a reason for serious criticism.  Most beliefs are coherent until one starts applying questions from the outside.

How I Became a Humanist #6: Emanuel's House: How a Good Church Experience Ruins All Others

Between the year 2000 and 2003, I learned and experienced many things that challenged both my faith in Church of Christ doctrine, and led to me questioning Christianity as a whole.  The next several posts in this series are dedicated to those years.  Attending Emanuel's House was one of the key experiences.

Emanuel's House was by far the best church I have ever had.  Although the church no longer exists, I still consider myself a member; I'm not alone in this.  Emanuel's House (Ehouse) grew out of a prayer group that was started in Luke's house in the fall of 1999.  The group grew and formed a church the following spring.

It was a small church led and attended mostly by college students.  We met in the afternoons, which allowed me to lead a retirement home ministry with my friend Mal and to visit different kinds of churches.  Our members came from a variety of different Christian theological traditions.  The diversity within the group was fertile ground for my curious mind.

This wasn't the only thing that was unique about Ehouse.  Several of us were ministry or theology students.  The role of preaching and teaching was shared between a handful of talented and thoughtful people.  We often discussed the message as a group after the sermon was over, finding life application, adding nuance and sometimes even debating.  The exercise created community, inspired tolerance and taught critical thinking.

A Typical Emanuel's House Fellowship, well, kind of

After service, we went to someone's house for fellowship.  We'd play games, worship or do some kind of service together.  Often all three things would be going on at once.  We became part of each other's daily lives.  If one of us was in the hospital, members showed up in droves.  We got each other jobs, paid each other's bills and helped each other move.  We were family.  Many of us still are.

For me, Ehouse was something of a playground.  We had several theologians.  Among them, I was the one always pressing the envelop in some form or fashion.  I've always been both something of a zealot and a moving target.  I latch onto big ideas, dice them up, and synthesize them with what I already know before moving onto something else.  This gives me both multi-perspectival depth on a wide range of issues.  It's also a bit taxing to the people around me.  (Thought slightly less zealous, I can't say that I've changed #ENTP).

Ehouse gave me a fair amount of leeway when it came to trying new things.  Sometimes they worked; sometimes they didn't.

It also gave me plenty of people with whom I could work out new ideas: people who challenged me, fed me new information and experiences, and people who teased out different ideas through intense and ongoing conversations.

The bad thing about Ehouse is that after leaving, I never was able to find anything like it again.  I sometimes had the opportunity to work with amazing people, but the sort of community and openness to new ideas was something I was unable to find.  

The Zoroastrians (Part 1): Who are the Zoroastrians?!?!

One of the first questions I was asked when I walked into the Zoroastrian's building was, "How did you find out about us?"  It was a fair question.  At one time, Zoroastrianism was the largest organized religion in the world.  Today, the ancient religion has less than 200,000 adherents.  Not surprisingly, most people have never heard of the Zoroastrians.

Except that they have.  Almost everyone in the world, regardless of whether or not they are Christian, is familiar with the birth narrative of Jesus.  Most of us have heard of the three wise men.  These men, called Magi in literal translations of the Bible, came from the East, which here means Persia.  So, what is a Magi?  Magi were Zoroastrian clergy.  Zoroastrianism was the religion of the Persian Empire.

The Three Magi (Wise Men) depicted on their way to visit Jesus

Like the Jews, the Zoroastrians were monotheists who believed in a Savior to be born of a virgin.  This seems to be why Matthew took the time to tell this story.  If that's correct, Matthew seems to think that the birth of Jesus fulfills a prophesy shared by both religions.  He doesn't say this explicitly.

Zoroastrians show up elsewhere in the Christian scriptures too.  People who have read their Old Testament will recall that after the Persians conquered Babylon, they not only freed the Jews from oppression.  They helped Jews resettle in Judea and even gave money to rebuild the Temple.  It wasn't uncommon for the Persians to treat their subjects kindly, but they may have been especially kind to the Jews on account of their shared monotheism.  The Jews, in turn, seemed to have a positive view of Persia, especially when compared with their view of the Greeks and Romans.

The bird icon above the door is the Zoroastrian symbol for God's Holy Spirit.

For at least the last century, there has been an ongoing debate among scholars concerning the degree to which Zoroastrianism influenced second temple Judaism and Christianity.  Like Christians, Zoroastrians believe that God has a Holy Spirit who at times takes the shape of a bird.  They believe in an afterlife, in angels and demons and so much more.

I learned about the Zoroastrians during a Western Civilization class I took at Rochester College.  At the time, I was disturbed to learn that the Persians were also monotheists and that shared many views with Christians that aren't found in the Torah.  It raised a serious question for me.  Was religion simply an artifact of history or does God work through history.  The facts forced me to believe the either one or the other was true.

In any case, understanding Zoroastrianism is important for understanding the history of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  The four religions have directly influenced each other in a variety of ways.  Now you know a little bit about who the Zoroastrians are.  I'll post about my visit with them in a few days.

Little Lessons: Communion Part 2: Unity in Jesus

A Table sometimes used for the sacrament at the Catholic National Basilica in DC

Every Sunday, Christians unite in sharing a tiny meal they call communion.  While they partake of the Body and Blood of Christ (the bread and wine) they share this ritual with Christians all around the world.  They share it with those believers who look like them and hold doctrinal beliefs similar to their own.  And they share it with Christians who look different from themselves and who belief different things about Jesus, or church or politics than they do.  They are united in this ritual whether or not they mean to be."

In this, they are not unlike Jesus' earliest followers.  Among his closest disciples were a tax collector and a zealot.  One worked for the Roman government, the other wanted to overthrow it violently.  He was followed by some Essenes and Pharisees too. He was followed by fishermen who probably didn't care much for politics or religion.  The Gospels don't record him forcing them to adopt a new set of religious or political beliefs before following him.  Their unity wasn't found in these things, it was found in their attempt to follow Jesus.  Something similar happens at the Communion table.

Communion Table at a Disciples of Christ (Christian) church

When we share communion, we are sharing in the Body of Christ, something Paul says should not be divided.  When we share communion, we are declaring our participation in something greater than ourselves, something greater than our understandings and our misunderstandings.  We're declaring that "I'm a part of this with all of you."  This is why we don't share communion alone.  We're not just communing with God, we're communing with one another.  So much of our communion with God is communion with one another. The symbols we share together don't just represent Christ, they represent the Christ in each of us.

Communion is a ritual that symbolizes our unity with those around us and with those far away.  It even symbolizes our unity with those we struggle to love.  It's a reminder that we share in Jesus together.

For Part 1 in this series, click here.

Noble Seeker Blog: Update 1

I started writing a month ago at the encouragement of several friends.  I decided to write about religion because politics is too contentious for people to listen to one another right now and I'm not sure how to go about explaining my thoughts in the intersection between technology, geopolitics and economics.

The first time I had the idea to do a blog like this was in 2014, which I visited Chapel Hill UMC in San Antonio, TX

I knew I wanted to tell the story about how I became a Humanist and possibly where my thoughts have led me since.  I also knew that in telling that story, I'd want to talk about some of the churches and other religious organizations I visited that had opened my mind.  I saw an opportunity to return to a practice I had maintained during the years I went to Emanuel's House, that of visiting religious communities with the hope of learning something new.  So, I did that too.

I didn't expect the response I've gotten over the last month.  So many of you have thanked me personally since I started writing.  You've shared my work.  I'm surprised to find more and more people reading and returning to the site every week.  Google Analytics suggests that several people were using my communion thoughts in church last Sunday (at exactly 11:30 am).  I would never would have imagined.

Me around the time I became a Humanist (2006)

I intend to keep writing for the foreseeable future.  Life may get in the way of me posting as frequently as I currently do.  If I could, I would do this for a living.  In an ideal world, I'd turn this project into something much larger.  I'd create interfaith dialogues and interfaith service projects.  The dialogues would be panel discussions followed by fellowship rather than events where people get up and give a speech representing their faith's values.  These events would be accessible to lay people.  I'd work to create healthier conversations between theological liberals and evangelicals too; and also between religious and non-religious people.  So often, these labels divide us more than they should.

Today, these goals are a long way off.  I don't know if I can achieve them.  For now, I'll keep writing.

From my visit to Holy Land Franciscan Monastery in DC (2/9/2017)

The Importance of Welcoming Those Who Are Different From Us

When I walked into Allen Chapel A.M.E. Church, I was quite noticeably the only white person in the building.  The looks I got from some of the other attendees made me confident that I was the first white person to attend one of their services in a while.

Nevertheless, I received a warm welcome from many of the members there.  Honestly, I was overwhelmed by their kindness.  They were a warm bunch to begin with, but I was certain that some of their kindness was intended to let me know that it was okay for me to be there.  I was welcome.

The Marquee outside Allen Chapel A.M.E. Church in DC

It's a nervous thing being the only one of your kind in a large group.  This is true when the thing that makes you different is obvious, like skin color or gender.  It's also true if the difference has to do with beliefs or sexual preferences.  We don't want to be excluded for those things that make us who we are.  We certainly don't want to feel unsafe because of them.

This is something to remember when we engage other people in conversation or when they visit our communities.  So often, it's easy to glare at a stranger with crossed arms conveying the idea that, "you disagree with me, therefore we are enemies."  We may not mean to be that harsh, but the person on the other end probably already feels unwelcome.  For most people, speaking up is itself a brave act.

Of course, this isn't only important when people enter our communities.  It's important when we enter into conversation with one another about those things over which we disagree.  It's normal to feel tension rise the moment we disagree with one another.  It's normal to feel defensive.  A disagreement can feel not only like a challenge to our beliefs, but also to our values.  It can make the person on the other end of the conversation feel like an enemy.

How our conversations shouldn't look

Of course, it's hard to have an open and honest conversation with someone we consider to be an enemy.  Our defenses go up.  We seek shelter from incoming ideas.  We shoot down the arguments we can, and evade others focusing on our ability to suppress the enemy with outgoing arguments.  When we do this, we're not having a conversation.  We're not learning from each other.  And really, we're wasting each other's time.  No one was ever converted either to Christianity or atheism by being sufficiently abused.

If we want to get past this, we need to welcome each other in these conversations.  We need to make it clear that the person on the other end of the conversation is not our enemy.  We need to show love at the outset.  This won't always work.  It won't always lead to a healthy conversation.  It certainly won't always lead to agreement or conversion.  Our goal should be increased understanding, rather than conversion.  We should not be in the business of annexing minds.  Conversation isn't conquest.  Done well, it is an attempt to seek truth together while enjoying each other's company.

The nice thing about this is that when others don't respond in kind, we don't have to continue the conversation.  If the goal isn't mutual understanding and seeking truth together, we can peacefully leave any conversation where our partner doesn't share those goals.  Let the angry people throw bombs and hide in shelters.  We should enjoy the search for truth and the good company of fellow seekers.

When we share ideas, even in passionate or contentious moments we should feel like fellow searchers, not like enemies

The Mormon View of God, Heaven and Hell (LDS Temple Visitors Center in DC)

Statue of Jesus in DC Visitors' Center

Understanding the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) begins with understanding their view of God.  While most religious people see God as a spiritual being, the Mormons believe that God is both a physical and spiritual being.  He has a body much like we do for we are made in his image.

Once upon a time, God existed much as we do, on a different planet.  He lived a good life and believed the right things.  He was rewarded by being sent to Celestial Heaven (the highest level of Heaven), and eventually became the God we know and love.

God wants the same thing for us, his children, but like him we have to earn it.  We begin our lives as pre-existent spirits.  As pre-existent spirits, we had a choice.  We can be born on earth and live out our lives trying to work out way back to God and to a higher level of heaven than where we started or we can rebel and join the Devil and his angels.  The Mormon's believe that if you have a body, you chose not to join the devil.

Temple Visitors' Center in DC

Heaven and Hell
The Latter Day Saints believe in three levels of heaven and one level of hell.  You have to be more or less Hitler Evil to find yourself in hell, but you could be a generically bad person and find yourself in Tertiary heaven, which sounds like an eternal version of Somalia.  There you work long days, and experience a less than pleasant existence for eternity.  You'll still have some good times, but less so than most people generally would here on earth.

If you're a decent person however, you'll find yourself in the Terrestrial Heaven.   Terrestrial Heaven is like a good version of life on earth.  When the sisters explained this to me, I said, "So, it's like Boston.  If I could die and go to Boston for eternity, I would."  The sisters had never visited Boston.  In this heaven, there are more happy times than usual.  You don't have to work, etc.

If you're a good Mormon, you go to the Celestial Heaven.  This is a perfect paradise where you get to live in the presence of God.  God is, apparently, present in all of these places (perhaps except hell) in some form.  But in the Celestial Heaven, he is physically present.  The reason Mormons baptize the dead is to give the dead the option to join the LDS Church before being judged - if I understand correctly.  They believe that since some people don't know the truth that baptism for the dead will allow them the option to choose to be with God in the Celestial Heaven.

This display emphasizes the global nature of the LDS church by showing the the BoM printed in various languages

When I heard this, I asked why God couldn't just grant them this option without the ritual.  Couldn't God be gracious towards people who lacked knowledge even without someone performing a ritual on their behalf?  I was told that everyone who wants an opportunity to enter the Celestial Heaven has to be baptized, because God wants everyone playing by the same rules.  I found this explanation to be self-defeating, but did not press the issue.

The goal for humans is to get to the Celestial Heaven, which they can only do by being Latter Day Saints.  The Mormons have what's called a high ecclesiology. This means that they think that the church, it's doctrines and rituals very important to God.  They also believe that God only fully accepts people who are in his one true church.  In this way, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is much like many of the other churches that grew up on American soil in the 1800s, including my own heritage.  I grew up being taught that dogma and ritual were the central elements that defined the one true church and that God could not accept imperfection in these areas.  I will discuss this more in the future.

How I Became a Humanist #5: Visiting the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church)

One summer, while working security, I saw a young woman walking out of the apartment complex holding a Bible.  We struck up a conversation.  She was headed to a Disciples of Christ church.  On account of my Church of Christ background, I was instantly curious.

The two denominations had originally been part of the same movement.  They began dividing after the American Civil War, mostly along the lines of north and south.  Like most northern churches, the Disciples of Christ were more liberal, both theologically and politically.  The southern Churches of Christ were more conservative.

The young woman invited me to come out one Sunday.  I took her up on the offer.  It would be my first time visiting a church outside the Churches of Christ.

I had expected the Disciples of Christ to differ only slightly from the Churches of Christ.  I knew, for example, that they used instruments and had missionary societies.  These were the main doctrinally contentious issues in the late 1800s that eventually caused the split.  It hadn't occurred to me that the churches had evolved since.

I stepped in to hear a pipe organ playing.  While I wasn't opposed to instrumental music any more, I didn't care for the organ.  The church had a female minister who shared the ministry with her husband.  I was slightly unnerved by their being a female minister.  The Churches of Christ teach that women are not supposed to teach or hold leadership in the church.

Like the Churches of Christ, the Disciples have their Communion Table Front and Center

If this had been all that had happened, I would have left the church an unchanged man.  But it wasn't.  During the service, the church read about 2 whole chapters of scripture. I'd never experienced anything like it.  Our churches read a few verses in support of the sermon.  This church read scripture for it's own sake.

The whole experience was a slap in the face to my Church of Christ upbringing.  I'd been taught that our churches were the only ones that read the Bible.  If that was true, why were they reading so much more of it in their services than we were?  Why were they reading it for its own sake when we weren't?  I admired the practice and was curious what others I might be missing out on.  I began to question my beliefs about other churches.  My faith in Church of Christ rhetoric had suffered a significant blow.  It would not recover.

Allen Chapel A.M.E. Church

The African Methodist Episcopal Church was the first independent black denomination in the United States.  My knowledge and experience of black spirituality is quite limited and I decided it was a good morning to begin addressing this by visiting with them.

It was clear when I walked in that I stood out.  I assumed that they don't get many white visitors.  Still, I was greeted warmly.  I soon found a seat in the auditorium and began to look around.  A choir sat up front behind the pulpit.  Some women, mostly older, wore hats.  I wondered if there was a doctrinal reason for this, and if there was a generational difference of opinion on the issue.  If so, the congregation didn't seem divided over it.

The service began with a procession as the Reverend and several others entered the room and moved to the front of the auditorium.  Everyone stood for this.  And then, I heard the most awesome version of Doxology ever.  A song or two followed and then the church read scripture together with the Reverend reading one verse and the congregation reading the next.

Placement of the pulpit and choir seating reflect a theological emphasis on preaching and praise; the lack of communion table or baptismal seems to reflect a devaluing of the sacraments compared with some Christian traditions.  

After this, visitors were introduced to the congregation and an extended period of greeting began.  Before this moment, I had felt a little out of place.  That melted away.  I was given so many hugs and handshakes that I couldn't help but feel welcome.  It's a very warm congregation.

Before launching into his sermon, the Reverend discussed the recent executive order concerning refugees.  He passionately stated that the move was unChristian and stood outside of America's best traditions.  He made it clear that Christians stood up for the oppressed and that they didn't discriminate against people based on their race, ethnicity or religion.  Tears flowed from my eyes as he spoke.  I nearly wept.

A vibrant service continued.  The choir and the congregation sang boisterously.  The Reverend preached about God working with people who were "in the cave" - a symbol for failure and defeat taken from 1 Samuel 22:1-8.  While only part of the passage was read, his exegetical work brought out the rest of the story as he applied it to various situations people face in their daily lives.  He is an amazing preacher.

Allen Chapel A.M.E front entrance

The service ended with an altar call.  Almost everyone approached the front of the sanctuary.  I've seen this in some Assemblies of God.  I wondered what the significance of everyone approaching meant.  Where does this tradition come from?

After the service, I chatted with several people including a kind woman who showed me around the building and drank coffee with me in the fellowship hall.  We exchanged stories.  She told me how she'd been saved and how she currently worked in a prison ministry.  The church and its members actively work for social justice.  They had any number of ministers doing some kind of justice ministry and seemed to focus on a particular one each month.  At least, that's the impression I got from their announcements.

I noticed a few more things about the church, but they don't fit easily into this essay.  Perhaps I will address them in a reflection later.  In any case, I had a great time.  I learned a lot and I want to learn more.

*Later that day, member of the Allen Chapel attended an ecumenical revival of sorts.  Different denominations worshiped together.  I thought to myself that doing this between black, white and Hispanic churches might be a good way to break down some of the racial tension in this country.  Religion is so often used to separate us.  It should be used to bring us together.

Little Lessons: Communion Part 1: Do This in Remembrance of Me

*The little lessons series contains short lessons of applied theology or philosophy.  This particular lesson concerns a ritual that has always been dear to my heart, even during those years when I was unwilling to share in it.*

Every Sunday, Christians around the world gather to worship and fellowship with one another.  While together, they share songs, prayers, instruction and usually partake in a ritual meal.  This meal is called Communion, the Eucharist, or The Lord's Supper depending on the particular Christian tradition in question.

Christians often think of this time as a memorial.  They take a moment to reflect on the death and resurrection of Jesus recalling the last supper that he shared with his disciples during which he commanded them to "Do this in remembrance of me," whenever they shared bread and wine.  

Front and center is a typical Church of Christ Lord's Supper table.  Behind is the stage on which I gave my grandfather's eulogy

Consider for a moment the last funeral you went to.  I attended my grandfather's funeral in early December.  At both the viewing and the funeral, people shared stories about my grandfather's life.  When my uncle and I got up to speak during the service, we talked about his life too.  We talked about what he did, how he interacted with people and what inspiration we can all get from the life he lived.  We did this because that's what you do at a memorial.  It would have been strange if we had spent the whole time focused on his death. For Christians, Jesus' death on the cross is the culminating act in the story of his life, but it shouldn't be the only story that gets remembered around the communion table.

The earliest paintings of Jesus rarely showed him on the cross.  He is often depicted like this, as a shepherd (notice the sheep on his shoulders).  This suggests that the earliest Christians tended to focus on Jesus' life more than on his death.  

Instead,  Christians should also recall the time that Jesus healed the leper, or that he hung out with prostitutes and sinners.  They should consider what he taught.  Those are the things that give his life, death and even resurrection meaning to the Christian faith.  Christian theology would be different if Jesus had only spent time with the righteous or those who were well-to-do.  It would be different if he had taught us to hate, rather than to love.

Communion is more than a solemn moment in a worship service.  It is a ritual that signifies much of what is important to the Christian faith, which is why early Christians shared the ritual together weekly.  It is a ritual beautiful in its complexity.  I encourage my Christians friends to cherish all the beauty this ritual has to offer.

Faith Friday: Sikh

A couple of years ago, I visited the Sikh Center in San Antonio after having watched a Sikh speak an an inter-religious dialogue meeting.  You can read about my experience by clicking the link above.  Below, you can learn a little bit about Sikh dress and read some a small portion of their scriptures.  Let me know what you think in the comments below.

The Sikh Articles of Faith

The Sikh Articles of Faith link above explains the different articles of clothing that Sikhs wear and what they reflect about Sikh faith.  This wasn't what I was expecting when I originally clicked on the link myself.  Sikhs wear their hair and garments as reminders of their commitments.

Sikh Scriptures Concerning What God Wants from Humanity

When I look at the texts below, I can't help but compare them to the words of Jesus and the 8th century prophets of Judaism.  There is a strong emphasis on putting action above ritual and dogma.  

You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder other beings for pleasure. You look after your own interests, and so not see the interests of others. What good is your word? O Qazi, the One Lord is within you, but you do not think or contemplate on Him. You do not care for others, you are mad about religion, this is why your life is wasting away (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 483). 

Priest from both Hinduism and Islam got together and began discussing religion. A great fantasy has been created and no one could understand its mystery. They asked Guru Nanak to open and search in his scripture whether Hindu is greater or the Muslim. Guru replied that without good deeds both will have to weep and wail. Only by being a Hindu or a Muslim one cannot get accepted in the kingdom of God. As the color of safflower is impermanent and is washed away in water, likewise the colors of religiosity are also temporary (The Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji, 1).

Sikh Golden Temple in India

Proud of Our Beliefs

During a lecture at my second visit to the Baha'i Center, I got a strong sense that Baha'is are proud to be Baha'is.  There is a lot of good that comes with this.  They are proud to fight prejudice, to work towards justice and to be inclusive towards other religions.  Still, I found them oversimplifying other religious perspectives almost to the point of absurdity.  This may sound like a harsh criticism, but

1. I don't blame them for this.  Oversimplification is inevitable.
2. They were generous in their oversimplifications, which isn't always the case.

As a group, they seemed to agree that Christianity doesn't teach against racism or for a unified humanity.  To be fair, Baha'u'llah's writings are clearer on these issues than Paul's.  Nevertheless, there was a further assumption that God hadn't been working directly against racism through religion before God's revelation to Baha'ullah (in the mid 1800s).  I couldn't help but think of the Quakers I'd visited only hours before or the Sikhs I visited years ago.

One of many Baha'i Texts (It's worth reading)

My guess is that the Baha'is knows of both groups.  It's hard to be religiously aware and not know about the Sikhs, due to their being confused with Muslims.  And Quaker history (even their focus on the equality of all people) is American history canon.  Nevertheless, the information didn't seem to factor into the conversation.  Neither did Paul's declaration that Jews and Gentiles were one in Christ - a proclamation against both ethnic and cultural divisions (Ephesians 2:11-22)

The Baha'is can't be expected to know all of these facts any more than I can know all the things that might challenge or provide nuance to my beliefs.  Even what they do know may be difficult to incorporate into their current narrative.  Most of us are bad at using the information we know to challenge our most firmly held beliefs.  Consider all the creationists who have gone to zoos and see that at least anatomically that apes look very much like humans.  They have arms, thumbs, breasts, elbows, and knees.  They lack tails.  You even find them behaving like we do. They relax and daydream.  They nurture their children.

Creationists will see all of these things and still tell you that the people who think we are related to apes through evolution have no basis for the assumption.  My point isn't that creationists should concede by this evidence alone, rather it is that they should concede that a reasonable person could take these features as evidence.  I don't mean to single out creationists.  We are all somewhat blind to evidence that doesn't support our assumptions.  We find it hard to see evidence we're not looking for, and we usually only look for evidence that validates our beliefs.

Look at the fingers, the pensive look, the hairless face, the brow and front facing eyes.  Look at the very human-like ears.

Knowing our human limitations, we should strive both for humility and curiosity.  We should be aware that there is information we're inclined to miss due to current belief commitments, and we should intentionally ask if we know things that might challenge our beliefs.  This gets a little easier with time.  More than anything, we should go easy on one another.  We're all blind.  Looking down on one another for it only adds to our list of vices.