Saturday, February 2, 2013
Lenses to See By
Some time after the age of forty, I couldn't read as comfortably as before. The optometrist told me it was "presbyopia" (not to be confused with presbyterianism!), and that prescription reading glasses would help - which they do. Now, more than ever, I realize that we all need lenses to see clearly, even if they are the ones we were born with. How we interpret what we see depends on our cultural lenses, and the religious side of this is my topic here.
The cultural specificity of religions had always bothered me. Many religious practitioners make claims that theirs is the only True Religion, while the rest of us are deluded - or worse. Yet religions are clearly cultural products, and had I been born in Thailand, I suppose I would have been a Buddhist. Of course, science is in no better position in that regard, since whether we take science seriously also depends on our education and upbringing. Science, to be true, does not pretend to offer an exact description of the universe (science assumes that further data will modify or even radically change our understanding). However, the scientific method does claim to be the True Way (as it were) to better understand the universe, and, as a scientist, I'm inclined to believe that. My scientific inclinations are as culturally embedded as my religious ones.
In science, observational data support theories of the universe or its constituent parts. In religion, it's not so clear what observational data there might be. A biblical possibility comes from the end of the Sermon on the Mount. Anticipating multiple, and possibly self-serving, teachings within Christianity, Matthew 7:15-20 records Jesus' caution about "wolves in sheep's clothing", telling us, "by their fruits you shall know them". The Sermon is largely about ethical and religious Torah, and its summary (7:12), "in everything do to others as you would have them do to you: for this is the law and the prophets", suggests the nature of the fruits we should look for.
The turn to scripture here is religiously pragmatic; this is for me a fount of inspiration, and I'm not trying to slip in a claim that this is the only way to see the matter. Many religious traditions have some version of the Golden Rule, and it is not easy to choose between them. And even if you do, which version of a tradition do you choose? And how do you view that choice? For my part I choose what inspires me, and a community of which I am a part. So, here is a little to introduce where I am coming from, since not all readers of this blog know much about me. When asked my religious affiliation, I could reply, "Unitarian Universalist Christian." Which of course, doesn't make things much clearer for most people!
Most people I meet have heard of Christianity, and are aware that it has some variety. At the least, they have heard of Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic, or some of the many Protestant denominations. Among that variety, some are liberal, some conservative, and some more difficult to define. And all this makes Christianity hard to define. A Methodist minister once asked me if I believed that Jesus in the New Testament had been killed, and whether that Jesus was alive for me today. On my affirmative answer, he declared that was enough to be Christian for a start - although not a Methodist, mind! Marcus Borg in The Heart of Christianity suggests as marks of Christianity: the reality of God, and the centrality of the Bible and Jesus. While some want to draw the circle quite widely , others are more narrow in their definition of what it takes to be "true believers".
While there is an understandable desire to find once and for all a "true Christianity", stripped of all denominational pretensions, I'm not sure that it is desirable or possible. Even to take a stand on Bible alone is a stand that one must choose to take; the history of the wider tradition suggests that extra-biblical commentary has been the historical norm. Indeed, even the position of Bible-alone is an extra-biblical stand. We must at least be honest that each of our church communities has made a decision on how it interprets Christianity. Diversity of interpretation may actually be helpful, inasmuch as different churches are willing to engage in genuine, respectful and transforming dialogue.
This diversity of interpretation has probably been true ever since evangelists moved from their founding community to spread the gospel to other communities with different needs and expectations. Diarmaid McCullough's BBC series, The History of Christianity stresses divisions among Christians from the very beginning of the movement, and also emphasizes some of the strands of Christianity that we in the West tend not to recall. Each Christian community (indeed, each Christian) views the tradition through a lens, shaped by experience, teaching and temperament, among much else.
The lens I have chosen is that of Unitarian Universalism, a liberal religious movement that formed the Unitarian Universalist Association in 1961 through the merger of Unitarians and Universalists, both of which have denominational roots in the USA that go back to the founding of the nation. Unitarians grew out of the established church in Massachusetts, insisting on a rational understanding of scripture (in which they could see little evidence for trinitarian doctrine). Universalists made their name preaching universal salvation (which they also derived from rational interpretation of scripture) against the prevailing belief that many - in fact, most - would endure eternal torment in hell after death.
Starting out as liberal Christian denominations, Unitarian Universalism has come to include Humanists, Pagans, Buddhists, Christians, and others who tend not to think of a particular religious affiliation. (This list is by no means exhaustive, but merely those I've met in some numbers). With such wide latitude for individual religious opinions, we are not bound by a creed, but by common values as expressed in these Principles and Purposes.
I wrote above about Christianity being viewed through a lens. By the same token, each Unitarian Universalist sees Unitarian Universalism through a lens. In my case, that lens is a recognizable religious tradition - Christianity. But Unitarian Universalists are not under an obligation to define or identify with any particular tradition. Indeed, many would say they were just "Unitarian Universalists", although I question whether any such thing exists; we all see through lenses, even if those of a rational humanist, or a syncretic Pagan-Taoist.
I have presented a couple of the choices I have made: Unitarian Universalism and Christianity. The choices, however, are not entirely free. And here I am referring to choices as embedded in culture, education, experience and what have you. One criticism of Unitarian Universalism is that we can believe anything, which just isn't true.
Here are three possible constraints on what we can believe (and there may be more). First, from a scientific and logical perspective, some things are just false; we cannot simply believe what is falsifiable or illogical, for example, that two plus two equals five, or that cats can breathe underwater. Second, as Unitarian Universalists, we are covenanted to affirm and promote certain principles and purposes; we ought not believe that people can own one another, or that heretics should be put to death. And third, we cannot believe contrary to experience, teaching and temperament, any more than we can like music or visual art that we detest. We cannot believe anything. Our choice is not entirely free.
Which brings me to this conclusion. It matters which lenses we see through. The lenses I have chosen (or perhaps, they chose me) allow me to see the world more clearly, as best I can tell. They allow me to discern what to do and how to be. What I see through these lenses inspires me to do and to be. It comforts me when doing and being are too much. And it's not just about me and my lenses; it's actually about lenses we share in community, and how our being and doing affects the world. That will be a topic for another post.
In the meantime, I invite you to consider the following questions. What lenses do I see through? What do I see that is inpsiring? Comforting? Transforming? How does that benefit the world? How do I ensure that my lenses aren't misleading me?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment