because it is the proper and essential thing to do,
and because of the blessings associated with it;
so to be confident toward your fellow humans.
Some groundwork is in order especially regarding the relationship of Christian orthodoxy (lower case “o”), or anything else religious or spiritual, to skepticism and also to the imperfections in what is known as the Body (those persons committed to Jesus). Having thought as an adult for effectively a half century, I increasingly like the idea of being skeptical. Religious chicanery is of the most vile kind, as it self righteously preys upon human vulnerability and good will—equally vile is skeptic chicanery, for exactly the same reasons. It is fully fair and appropriate to apply skepticism to itself as well. When someone becomes bullyish in their speech or wording, they are in all likelihood dishing up a dose of chicanery. The same is true for broad sweeping statements with no indication of external confirmation. It can be hard for such people to toe their own line, revealing the inconsistencies and contradictions of their confidently stated positions. It applies to anyone on any point that “some-earthly-authority-said-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it” settles nothing.
There is no justification for so much tribalism, zealotry, and hate regardless of the thought system espoused. Hostility in expression merely diminishes the point being made. Inside each individual is an intelligent person with viewpoints valid in the context of their own life. That personal context widens as one’s life broadens with exposure to others who think differently, and serves to focus one’s own honest convictions.
So here are the rules of the road for this discussion: Ad hominem attacks are non-starters—instead, I want respectful, meaningful, and chicanery-free thought. Is an atheist a good person because they fled a religious faith? That could be so, especially if that person’s genuine questions were answered by those claiming spiritual knowledge with either ignorance or chicanery. Is a person of spiritual faith a good person because they have a spiritual faith? That could be so also, especially if that person’s genuine questions were answered by those claiming scientific knowledge with either ignorance or chicanery. How can science be ignorant? Well, science by its nature knows we do not have all the answers. How can spiritual faith be ignorant? Well, in the case of orthodox Christianity we know that for now we only see through a glass darkly. Note that neither science nor most religions claim conclusive absolutes about the specific details of life and its meaning. So an atheist has no cause to care what private faith a spiritual person has, as you’re all going back to the dust of the earth and that’s it for both of you. A person of faith has no cause to intrude on an atheist’s lack of spiritual faith, as that is a private matter between that person and God. This all means that everyone should avoid being judgemental of each other, and instead enjoy our common humanity.
The real problem for honest skeptics is the acceptance as fact of things unproven. But how then can one claim with such surety that there is no God when there is no equally scientifically conclusive evidence that spiritual things do not exist? It is a serious error to assume and assert that science speaks for things beyond its own realm. All of the postulations and declarations should be measured by the same metric vis-à-vis each other. Saying something is not proven to an irrelevant standard is not the same as proving it is true or false (regardless of how much the person postulating wishes it so pro or con). Any thought system must as a minimum be consistent within itself (if Beelzebub is divided against himself, he cannot stand). Persons of faith must also take care not to stand upon science as a foundation of spiritual truth, but as at most just a testimony to it.
What we have today in the form of the Hebrew Torah contains much wisdom and spiritual value, which is lost when attempts are made to apply it without understanding the context contemporary to its time. The Creation account is beautiful, and I say accurate in its own context. Think of the “formless void” before the Big Bang, and then “there was light.” We now have a universe, the one science can see, that is billions of light years in size reaching in multiple directions. The Book of Genesis is only a thumbnail of that high resolution image, a glass through which we only see darkly. But it is sufficient for the purpose of spiritual instruction and salvation, which is its primary purpose toward that time when our knowledge will be face to face with God.
Some prominent scientists who identify as atheists have stated that they cannot accept the concept of a creator being because they cannot countenance such a being allowing the unspeakable cruelty done by humans to each other over the course of history. This position impresses me as woefully sophomoric. How can these persons who are demonstrably intelligent in their own fields of expertise make such an unscientific and moralistic statement? It’s reasonable to say that science is neither good nor bad in and of itself, so I suspect there is something else motivating statements that there is no God and offering witness of natural disasters and inter-human treachery as evidence for that position. In face of the runaway demagogy of our contemporary time, an argument can be made instead for science with a moral spine!
I have also observed that some who claim to be atheist are quick to dabble in a pantheistic or quasi-spiritual or personally customized adaptation of a particular religion in a semi-serious way. That’s fine if they benefit from it, but is there a spiritual aspect to our existence or is there not? (The “is Buddhism true?” discussion appears to me as an attempt by some to have their cake and eat it too. Acting as if there is no spirituality in Buddhism, they seem to be repeating a similar error found in Christianity in having “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” 2 Timothy 3:5). And what reasonable secular person would make a claim about something spiritual that cannot be confirmed and documented by a scientific method? If you cannot prove your spiritual experience scientifically, perhaps you could at least relate it anecdotally. If then spirituality is observable, what value does human spiritual sensitivity (shall we say spiritual intelligence?) have that would cause it to be naturally selected for development and retention in the course of evolution to Homo sapiens? (Human misuse of spiritual sensitivities throughout history, such as human sacrifices, wars, slavery, and other oppression, is a separate discussion from the existence of spirituality.)
Then how can something spiritual be confirmed as existing? That is a tricky question, so watch where you step—the instinct of the atheist (realist) could be useful here. I view things spiritual as similar to known colorless odorless gasses. They are undetected by natural human means, but have a tangible presence and effect. To the temporal human mind the manifestation of spiritual things is like the wind, where we cannot through natural human means determine where they come from or where they go. Spiritual things by definition are sourced independently of anything internal to temporal (natural) humans, such as emotions or brain synapse patterns. Instead, the Spirit (God) influences those same temporal functions for his own purposes. We cannot see oxygen, but we absorb it through breathing and it interacts with the food we eat to power our bodies. Humans do not make oxygen (just as brain synapses do not make spiritual things) but oxygen (spiritual things) unquestionably has an effect on humans. Substitute natural gas (methane), and the effects are different and more treacherous (think malfunctioning gas stove).
So how do I know all this? I’m not appealing to science, as spiritual matters are external (but not opposing) to pure science. There is no hypothesis and test protocol here. Without science, though, claiming knowledge from another source is teetering on the slippery slope of Gnosticism at best, and cultism at worst. Maybe I want to run to the spiritual safety of atheism (now there’s an oxymoron!). This is truly a “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way” situation. My conclusion is that the only possible way is “Jesus Christ, and him crucified,” even though Roman crucifixion was arguably one of the cruelest execution means devised, and eating human flesh and drinking human blood (God’s flesh and blood in the case of Christianity) even symbolically is foreign to civilized sensibilities. Although on the surface it might seem nonsensical, I do not see any other way to get there from here. Those other ways include human attempts at reasoning, such as this discussion.
So how do we reason anyway, and what is our pretence to objectivity? I sense that there are levels (or types) of intelligence, and those are as follows: cognitive, spiritual, and holy intelligence. Each is present inside individual humans to varying degrees.
Cognitive intelligence is that measured by means such as IQ tests and other psychological studies. Include rational and emotional intelligence in this group, even also our reptilian impulses together with our higher cognitive brain functions. These are as straightforward as the scientific volumes written about them. I take issue with the assertion that anything considered spiritual is merely a function of physical cognitive functions, explained through the immense complexity of the human brain and the self deception that enables. Some things in someone’s claim of spiritual awareness could certainly be sourced from that person’s physical cognitive synapses—perhaps enhanced by religious chicanery. This is a false spirituality, a sad condition for the person involved, and tragic when it results in harm to others. But this is fully apart and of a different nature from the sighs (groanings) too deep for words that are expressed on our behalf by the Holy Spirit.
Spiritual intelligence is the spiritual sensitivity that I think evolved in humans in response to the spiritual things around us, similar to the way that the eye evolved in response to physical light. The chakras and human longing to “be with nature” interact with our spiritual intelligence. Our natural spiritual vision can see spiritual “objects” but without a high degree of clarity, similar to the difficulty a normal grocery shopper has in discerning the difference between cuts of beef, pork, and lamb without labels on them to know what each is with certainty.
Holy intelligence is not possible through cognitive means, and even seeking through spiritual intelligence is a fool’s errand in this. That is why if you search for spiritual things through cognitive methods, you will expectedly conclude that there is no god. Holy intelligence is not some type of secret sauce (Gnosticism is actually its antithesis), but instead is in plain sight and open to anyone who will listen and communicate on that channel. To open that channel, we need to get our natural cognitive and spiritual noise levels down low enough to hear the still small voice of the holy. It’s counterintuitive to do so (remember about the noise level)—we must die to self-centeredness so as to allow the all including self to live. I like to call it holy mojo, and its scope is eternal plus outside of time. There are no words to clearly describe the holy, because it is outside of temporal experience and human words cannot convey it—but it breathes life into the temporal (mortal) as well as the eternal (spiritual). Where are my references for this? Search the scriptures, yes, but what do you do with what you read? Your effort is fruitless without your holy channel open. I think that every human has seeds of the holy that are just as integral as one’s cognitive and spiritual components, but they will grow only when bathed in holy light. (Such metaphors, but remember that thing about “words cannot convey.”)
The lower intelligence levels cannot detect holy things, and one’s holy eyes cannot be opened by physical effort (that colorless gas cannot be seen physically even though it’s there and is just as tangible). Holy vision provides one a safe encapsulation in God’s guidance and protection of being in the cosmos (those uncountable stars are just as much the Creator God’s domain as the infinitesimal bit of earth in front of you). I think that is why those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit are courting being utterly outcast from their Creator, because that closes the gate (means) on them to God’s kingdom. It is worth noting that there are many people with active holy intelligence who are overlooked by other spiritual people as being so, because they do not manifest their holiness in a way detectable by the observer’s lower intelligence levels (similar to angels unaware). All of us have fallen short in this area.
The demand for evidence is a healthy one. So is the demand for decency. There are so many tares growing among the wheat, how can we tell them apart? I say God help us (including with the sorting)!
Regarding wheat versus tares, if it is by their fruits that you will know them, then far too many religious people must be invisible. Far too many people produce either no fruit or bad fruit that harms others. Is it therefore their religion that made them behave badly? Many people appear to have reached that conclusion. They reject God based on the wickedness they see in those who claim faith in God. I never could follow that logic; the fault in those cases is that of the humans, not of God. It might be a seemingly handy excuse to cover an already atheistic conviction, in which cases I would respect you more were you to just say you do not buy into spiritual things because you simply see no evidence of them yourself. Another issue surrounding Christianity is the “who do you say that I am” question.
Christian orthodoxy says that God loves all people equally, but that all other religions are if not wholly false just dead ends. That throws problematic and frustrating obstacles into ecumenical efforts. I think there are many people who are nominal Christians who would realize, were they fully candid with themselves, that they are really of a Unitarian Universalist conviction. I say be yourself, and stop living a lie. But I think that orthodox Christianity was and is intended by God to escape its Hebrew and later Roman roots. Most other religions also formed out of the context of the culture in which they developed. The main difference is that, as far as I know, none of them had the equivalent of an Apostle Paul to take the faith internationally outside of its cradle culture. That there are some significant similarities between the Christian faith and that of the Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, and the pantheon of “nature” faiths only further validates orthodox Christianity for me. And that the Christian faith survived as a faith recognizable from its origins through the centuries after Constantine made it the official catch all music-mix for the Roman empire is nothing short of an act of God himself.
So who is this blog really for? It is addressed to those whose faith is that of Christian orthodoxy. Although everyone else is welcome to stay, what follows may or may not resonate for you, depending on how much of the temporal world or your own spiritual perspective is addressed in the section you are reading. Now, oh those of Christian orthodoxy, let us get some things sorted out.
I think a lot of modern Christian writing leaves out the central core of what God (Yeshua, Jesus) is all about. There is plenty of focus on what I think are side issues, especially centered around personal morality. A lot of what passes as fundamental Christianity is borderline Gnosticism to me, with its sectarian mores for what is right and wrong behavior being given unfounded spiritual significance. Much of this is accompanied by an unholy abuse of scripture. But I think the real issues of interest to God are economic, cultural, and personal—and these relate to fairness and decent treatment of all people, regardless of one’s identity in human society. Attaining God’s will cannot be done via human devices. Forget whether an economic arrangement is Keynesian or Austrian, the real question is whom does it benefit and how is the system (any system) being gamed. The real question is: where is Christ in this crowd?
A related area mostly ignored since the First Century is that of community, however that may be defined. Why did the community described in Acts devolve into the splintered schisms over heresies and doctrinal disputes early enough to be addressed in the Epistles? I think one explanation is the adjustment from a short term perspective, in which Jesus was expected to return imminently, to a longer perspective of considering that it might be a long time from now before the Second Coming. I doubt that those people described in Acts who sold all they had and adopted essentially a commune lifestyle would have done so had they not expected Jesus to return in a very short time. If not, who then would plant and harvest the crops, and raise the livestock? Who would build and maintain the houses, highways, and other infrastructure? Who would do any of those things essential for life in any settlement, small or large? For that reason alone, I think a certain degree of holiness is ascribed to them that was not justified. Conversely, were they then wrong to return to temporal stewardship? To be fair to them, I don’t think so. If the eternal Kingdom of God is among us, then it is among us in functional temporal arrangements, as those are also a part of overall eternity. What might those temporal arrangements be? Well, let the discussion begin. Or, more accurately, continue the millennia-long discussion, only this time with a holy consideration of both the spiritual and practical (acknowledging the two as one in the same; think the Epistle of James). In an unexpected way I think it is fortunate (perhaps from a Christian perspective, providence?) that the Body was obliged to address these essential “kingdom living” questions instead of just feeling queued up for the jetway to their own rapture/ascension. Or if being on the jetway is the actual way to live the kingdom, how then to sustain it for the long term spanning multiple human lifetimes (see “who would” questions above)?
Do you know the answer to any of this? Or is it even possible to quantify spiritual things, tangible as they are for those who are spiritual? I think all of this might be quantifiable, but not by us humans. I think that is why some of the parables were cast as “the kingdom of God is like,” instead of describing directly what the kingdom of God is. The actual articulation of it would be gibberish to us in our present state, even as greatly evolved beyond the lower animals that we are. It would be like someone explaining advanced engineering to someone not familiar with that field of study, while speaking to them in a language they were not fluent in. Given that the other person is of equal intelligence, it would be possible for them to both become fluent in the language spoken/written as well as grasp the concepts, but only after a great amount of study, questions, instruction, and practical exercises. How then does the Holy Spirit communicate with us in our present spiritual state? Has human spirituality evolved equally together with our temporal existence? How do you answer? If faith and works are inseparable, how are they manifested to effect healing and salvation, spiritual and mortal, temporal and eternal, for both individuals and all humanity?
We need to address the quite valid issues of personal behavior, especially loving treatment of each other, and daily prayer (part of that spiritual and temporal manifestation). But those are nothing more than cognitive mind games if they do not also address the larger economic-community perspective presented in the Christian scriptures (New Testament), and the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament) that provide the foundation for them. Consider the “sheep and goats” narrative in which the true “kingdom” believers were the ones who were their “brother’s keeper.” Also consider that many of the Jews in the Hebrew scriptures taken into exile by pagan foreign powers fully believed they were righteous and that God approved of their practices (that we have the prophets’ perspective that God viewed it differently in no way makes us holier than them). It’s possible to believe something is right that is so very wrong, and our limited cognitive capacities cannot begin to consider all of the examples that continue to multiply daily in our present time.
So how does one keep from being a “goat,” and how does one grow in holy intelligence (and, most critically, apply it and live it)? It’s already established that cognitive exercises (like reading this text) alone are insufficient for growth in spiritual holiness. And all of us have the flesh battling with the spirit, damaging both body and soul. The answer is: if our faith in God is worth considering at all, we must leave the battle to God (which is counterintuitive for the natural human). It’s a spiritual battle that covers an expanse of space and time much greater than our temporal lives, but which rages through our temporal (mortal) lives. As long as we are in this temporal existence, the thundering of the battle will rage around us and through us. But we humans are not the combatants in this battle; except to stay in the holy safety of our Lord Jesus Christ. That part of us that is “goat” won’t come with us into the kingdom after this life. We must be constantly aware and seeking “how much of me is ‘sheep’ today” (the rest of it won’t make it past the refiner’s fire, and will be left to the destructive work of “moth and rust”).
In the end, can we humans make a difference? I think only to the extent that we “hitch ourselves and our desires to God’s wagon.” The ancient pagans looked to their gods for help in their temporal endeavors; to win a battle, have good crop yields, and basically looking to them as a sort of Santa Claus. Far too many religious people treat the actual Creator God in the same way—a foolish waste of human effort and of God’s attention. We need to learn to let God make a difference through us, and we do that by not only abiding in God but also inviting God to abide in us.
Whether or not you see these things in the same perspective as I is between you and God. In recognition that all true Christians are of one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, I offer these thoughts in the prayer that God will bless you through them.
mcw