How I Became a Humanist #12: How to Read and Understand the Bible #4

You'll meet people today who don't like Mark Twain, because sometimes he uses the work n***** in his books.  Of course, Twain was anti-racist for his time, but it can be hard for people to understand this because the word is so jarring to most modern ears.  It's easy to judge Twain by our standards today.  It's easy to forget that his books were written a particular point in time, and that to understand what he means, we have to understand his time to some degree.  This is true of all literature.  All literature is written in time by people from that time, at least originally to people from that time.

Let's talk about Genesis 1-3.

In many churches, Genesis chapter one immediately raises questions concerning science and religion.  "What does Christianity teach about evolution?"  Christians disagree about this, with Evangelicals usually stating that the earth was created in six days and more importantly believing that humans are not apes.  Theological liberals tend to believe in evolution and don't think the Genesis 1 narrative ought to be taken literally.

For now, I'm not interested in writing about evolution as a topic.  Instead, I'd like us to imagine reading this text before Darwin and any of his immediate predecessors.  In fact, I'd like us to imagine reading the text during the era it was written, a time before monotheism was common.  Normally, I've had people read the text before, but today I'd rather people follow along in the text as they read.  I'll point things out as we go.  To see everything well, you'll need a literal translation for this text.  I recommend using an NASB.

The first thing I want to do is to take a look at the days of creation.  I'll list them here, feel free to check it out for yourself.  Notice how the items in column A tend to match the items to their right in column B.


       Column A                                                                   Column B

DAY 1). Light and Darkness                                            DAY 4). Sun, Moon, and Stars

DAY 2). Sky and Ocean                                                  DAY 5). Birds and Fish

DAY 3). Land and Plants                                                 DAY 6). Animals and Humans

We don't normally see the days laid out like this, but take a good look.  In Genesis 1, God creates an environment and then fills it with stuff.  He paints the background, then animates it.  The days in each column correlate with one another to make this point.  One might think that the plants on day three are an anomaly, but that's only because we as removed from hunting and farming.  You can't have animals and humans without have plants first.  It's a different way of thinking than what we're used to, but the logic follows throughout the text.

Let's look at a few other things.  As you read through the text, notice the all-inclusive language.  In the NASB, the word "every" appears 11 times.  The word "all" also appears several times in the text.  It's important to the writer than the readers of the text understand that "God made everything!"  This message is lost on us, because most of us either believe in one God or zero Gods.  We don't understand why someone would bother to tell us that God created everything.  This wasn't true when the text was written.  Polytheism was once the religion of the day.  In polytheism, one god might have created the sky and another god might be responsible for the sea.  One god is responsible for the moon and another for trees, etc.  (For it's time, this was an incredibly controversial story, even among the Israelites who often worshipped Ba'al and other gods).

We see further evidence for this in the term Greater and Lesser Light.  A dynamic translation fails us here, using the term Sun, Moon, and Stars, but if you know anything about polytheism, you know that people used to worship these thing.  Their names were the names of Gods.  If you're attacking polytheism, you probably don't want to refer to these terms by the names of God, because you don't want your audience to think you're saying, "God created other gods."  So, in Egyptian, you wouldn't say, "God created Ra (the sun)."  You'd say God created the Great Light, removing the false god's name.  To a polytheist, referring to the Sun as a great light would have been more controversial than saying Happy Holidays during Christmas is to some American Evangelicals.  What's happening in this text was incredibly controversial for the time it was written.  Apparently it worked, since most of us aren't polytheists.

-You might ask, "would these be the names of gods in Hebrew?"  Yes, because Hebrew was a dialect of Phoenician.  In fact, El wasn't just worshiped by the Israelites.  El was the head of the pantheon throughout the Levant (what most Christians think of as Palestine).-

Genesis 1 was originally intended to defend monotheism in a polytheistic world.  What does that say about whether we should apply the text to the discussion concerning evolution?  You might expect me to say that it means that we shouldn't do it.  Clearly, I wouldn't do it.   But, I don't know that it's fair to expect this from every tradition of Christianity.  A text can have more than one meaning.  Even if the most important meaning isn't a literal one, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't also interpret the text literally.  Instead of saying that Evangelicals shouldn't interpret this text through the lens of evolution, it's better to say that they should be aware of the text's original context.

Zeus and other Gods.  In ancient times polytheism was the norm.  This is one reason why the Jews like the Persians (they too were monotheists).

My hope in writing this is that readers will understand that the historical context of the Bible matters when we read it.  The writers and original readers were asking different questions than we are.  Understanding that will help us access meanings in the text we might not otherwise have access to.  However, I can't fairly say that people shouldn't find more than one meaning in a set of scriptures or that people can't see meaning there that I don't.

I do hope that I have at least bridged some understanding between theological liberals and conservatives in writing this post.  They don't take the same approach when interpreting scripture, but if you can understand why the other party is interpreting it differently the conversations go a lot better.  It becomes easier to see each other as people seeking the truth, rather than heretics who have no concern for the truth whatsoever.  It's also easier have conversations if we understand each other's perspectives.  

How I Became a Humanist #11: How to Read and Understand the Bible #3

In the last chapter, I discussed how to look for themes in sections of the Bible that are bigger than chapters.  I showed readers how to ignore subtitles using the Gospel of Mark.  Today, I want to talk about how some stories in the Bible are placed right next to each other to make a bigger point, and how understanding that can clear up theological misunderstandings.  Let's talk about Genesis 18 - 19.  (Feel free to read along).

In the beginning of Genesis 18, Abraham meets three men.  The Lord is there also.  When Abraham sees them, he runs out to offer them hospitality.  To him, it's urgent that he treat these strangers well.  It appears at first that he doesn't realize that this is the Lord.  After this, Abraham is told that the Lord intends to destroy Sodom because of its unrighteousness.  Abraham begs that the city be spared if a small number of righteous can be spared.  God agrees that if he can find 10 good people there, it will be spared.

Abraham and the Three Visitors

In chapter 19, the men enter the city to meet Lot, Abraham's Nephew.  Lot too goes out of his way to show hospitality to the visitors.  However, citizens of the Sodom don't take kindly to the visitors and intend to rape them.

In Sunday school, I was told that this story was about homosexuality.  There may or may not be an element of that in the story (The Bible does not look kindly on homosexuality).  Nevertheless, that isn't the main point of the story.  Obviously rape and consensual sex aren't the same thing, rape is at least partly about power.  More importantly though is the context in which their attempt to harm occurs.  We just read a story about how Abraham treats visitors.  We are then shown Lot, a man whom God thinks is worth sparing.  Lot treats strangers same way that Abraham does.  Then we're shown exactly why the city of Sodom needs to be destroyed - visitors who are still in their town after dark will be raped, probably to death.

Verse 9 makes all of this very clear.  When Lot refuses to turn the men over to the crowd, they respond by saying,  "This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he' acting like our judge!  We'll treat you far worse than those other men!"  (NLT)  These people clearly mean to harm the visitors.  They also clearly think of Lot as an outsider, even though he lives in the city.  The issue here is their view of outsiders, their view of strangers.

The message, when we look at the stories side-by-side, is clear.  So why do we miss it?  Well, usually we aren't comparing stories side-by-side expecting to find meaning.  We look at the stories as history rather than theology.  We're not asking, "What does this story tell us about God, about morality?"  But, they aren't just history.  Moreover, we often come to the scriptures with questions we want to ask and points we want to prove.  The questions are fine, but points might not be.  The points are especially bad when they distract us from what the scriptures mean to say to us, in this case "don't hate foreigners."

Next time you read the Bible or another similar text, notice stories that are placed beside one another.  Ask, "are these stories related somehow?  Why does the author place them side-by-side this way?  Am I supposed to understand some greater point?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparing Baha'i with Christianity

When I visited the Baha'i Center in DC two weeks ago, I found myself comparing the Baha'i faith with Christianity.  I suppose this is only natural.  As I did this, I found several similarities.  This is especially true if one views Christianity through the lens of the early church.  Here are just a few observations.

• The Baha'i meet in houses, just like the earliest Christians
• They often have central houses for larger Sunday meetings, but not always
• During the week they meet in each other's houses for meals
• The main house is used for community events during the week (like AA meetings or yoga).
• They emphasize charitable work
• Early Christians stayed behind during plagues to care for the sick
• They paid for burial for the poor and took in orphans
• The Baha'i actively work on justice issues in their neighborhoods
• Like early Christians, they strongly encourage adoption
• They emphasize fellowship
• Early Christian worship usually involved a communal meal that culminated in the Eucharist
• The Baha'i Center is built for fellowship.
• The Baha'i meet in each other's homes for a meal during the week.  They call these Fireside chats.

Even their claim that Baha'i is a successor to previous revelations is a Christian theological move. From the beginning Christians have claimed that their religion was a natural successor to Judiasm, and that their savior fulfilled Jewish prophesy.  The Baha'is claim that Baha'ullah is the return of Jesus, because Jesus comes again and again to different cultures with different names.  They claim that Baha'i is the fulfillment of the prophesy that Jesus would come again.  And just like Christians see the Old Testament as instructive, but not binding because it's part of an older covenant, the Baha'is see older scriptures as instructive, but not binding because they are part of earlier revelations for earlier time periods.

While Christians didn't adopt non-Jewish scriptures, their early apologists sometimes claimed that Jesus was the fulfillment of pagan religions hopes or even prophesies.

• Paul claims that his God is the unknown God that pagans are worshiping Act 17:23
• Zoroastrian Magi visit Jesus in Matthew 2
• The Zoroastrians had a prophesy that the Savior would be born of a virgin
• They also believed in a Holy Spirit through which goodness is revealed - the ideas are not identical.
• Matthew doesn't directly say that Jesus is the fulfillment of Zoroastrian prophesy, but this is probably the only logical conclusion to draw.  

The place that I found the traditions most aligned, however, was in the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven.  When talking about the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus preaches a certain kind of moral life.  It's one where the peacemakers, rather than the war hawks, are honored.  It's one where his followers don't judge, because the standard they use will be used against them.  It's one where they love their neighbors and their enemies.  Jesus' Kingdom of Heaven is a new social order his followers bring to earth through faith, love and action.

Baha'is also use the term "Kingdom of Heaven."  I'm not sure if they mean the same thing, but the idea of God's servants bringing peace and justice to the world through love, action and faith is a dominant Baha'i theme.

The two religions fail to see eye-to-eye in several respects.  Most Christians see Jesus as God, but Baha'i see his as a divine man/being who continually returns to humanity to reveal God's will.  Christians are not likely to accept the idea of Jesus returning as a teacher, rather than a divine being calling them up into the sky.
Baha'is don't seem to think that Jesus died for the removal of their sins.  I didn't ask.  The topic never came up.  Evangelicals in particular are unlikely to agree with the Baha'i understanding of Heaven and Hell.  Most Evangelicals believe that Jesus (as defined by Christianity) is the only way to Heaven.  Several even believe that their particular sect of Christianity is the only sure guarantee.  Baha'is, on the other hand, think that one's spiritual development on earth will continue along the same path in the afterlife, regardless of dogma.

Certainly other comparisons and contrasts could be made, but I know too little to say more.

If you enjoyed reading this, please like, subscribe and share.
Thank you!

If you have a religious tradition you'd like to learn more about, let me know in the comments below and I'll try to visit and write about it.

My Neighbor's Faith: The Friends (Quakers)

I wanted to catch an early service this morning, so I chose the 7:30 am Friends' meeting in downtown DC.

I approached the house and buzzed the doorbell.  A young man with a German accent answered.  I explained that this was my first time attending a Friend's meeting.  He brought me into room where several chairs faced each other in a circle. He was not a Quaker either, but had come from Germany to do charity work in retribution for Germany's crimes during WWII and was working with the Friends to assist with social justice work.  We shared a Friends worship service which involved sitting together in silence for about 30 minutes.

The Friends believe that since all humans are made in God's Image, that God communicates with all of them - all we need to do is listen.  So their worship services involve sitting together and listening.  If God speaks to an individual, that individual might share the message with the community gathered.  Anyone can speak, but no one has to.

The chairs facing each other reflects their view of equality.  The Friends don't have clergy in the same way that most churches do.  Instead they have councils that help make them make decisions.  I don't understand this very well yet.

My German friend and I were the only ones participating in silence with God, but there were several other people moving about the house.  The house is used for a variety of social justice related events throughout the week.  They even have a hostel there with about 30 beds.  They charge little to nothing for people who need a place to stay.  There were several people waking as I was about to leave, probably in attendance from the Women's March on Washington.


Before we parted ways, my friend asked me what had brought me out today.  "I learned about the Friends in undergrad," I said.  "I was impressed by the fact that they emphasized equality in the 1600s.  I've always wanted to visit, so here I am."  He expressed a similar sentiment, then recommended that I visit one of the larger gatherings to learn more and get a better experience of how the community worships. I expect that I will do that sometime soon.