My friend
firepower was kind enough to come up with some really interesting questions for me, and I've finally answered them.
1. Belief: we accept that God exists, having or not having evidence. Personally, I have evidence. Do you still think belief causes a spiritual change? That it is better to "look not to what is seen but to what is unseen; the seen being transitory, the unseen being eternal"? Is belief - in your opinion - really that great a sticking point for God? A discussion of grace would be an acceptable answer.
2. Revelation. What was going on with John of Patmos? Is this stuff literally going to happen? If not, what is the relevance of Revelation today?
3. Abortion: at one point you were, and may still be, pro-life. Regardless of abortion's criminality, I posit that if it's a crime, so is the genocide of twenty-seven thousand earthly species a year. The real question is: why are religious activists so hot about saving this one kind of life? Is "fundamentalists'" routine distinction between human and other kinds of life appropriate to the times?
4. Io triumphe! What makes you proud about your time at Oxy, if anything?
5. Do you feel that the country is actually becoming more conservative, or that it simply likes the idea that its leaders are? Why?
I really appreciate it, and you can read my responses if you like.
1. Belief: we accept that God exists, having or not having evidence. Personally, I have evidence. Do you still think belief causes a spiritual change? That it is better to "look not to what is seen but to what is unseen; the seen being transitory, the unseen being eternal"? Is belief - in your opinion - really that great a sticking point for God? A discussion of grace would be an acceptable answer.
You ask whether I think belief is really all that important to God, and I think it depends on how we define belief. If we take belief to mean a purely intellectual acknowledgment of the fact of God’s existence, then no, I don’t think God really cares whether or not we “believe” in that way in God’s existence. God does indeed exist, our believing is immaterial. Likewise, if we take “belief” to be some kind of million-dollar answer that buys us our ticket to pie in the sky, I don’t think it matters much at all.
But, if we choose to see God at the center of our lives and acknowledge God as creator of all we know, we will also realize that God created us to love and care for ourselves, each other, and creation. If our belief leads us to realize (recognize and enact) this meaning of existence, we may in fact arrive at a spiritual change. I think that if we train our way of seeing carefully, we can learn to see (or recognize the presence of) what is unseen (God) in that which is seen (every person and part of creation).
I would define grace as God’s good and giving nature. Since we’re talking about belief, here’s a statement: I believe God wants all of creation to have shalom. And belief in of itself doesn’t do much to get us there. As the Reverend Dr. James Forbes said in his sermon here about interfaith work a couple of weeks ago, I don’t think Jesus has an ego problem. Talking about our beliefs isn’t all that important if they don’t lead to us to live for the health of all creation. But, ultimately, nothing we could do on our own would really be enough. We rely on God’s grace to guide us and help us along the way to wholeness, and I think our awareness of God’s gracious presence in our lives, whether or not we would describe it as belief in any traditional sort of way, does help us to go “with the grain of grace.”
2. Revelation. What was going on with John of Patmos? Is this stuff literally going to happen? If not, what is the relevance of Revelation today?
Much to my chagrin, I am unable to provide any worthy answer to this question. I have yet to read Revelation all the way through, and I really haven’t given it much study. How about a rain check for this answer?
3. Abortion: at one point you were, and may still be, pro-life. Regardless of abortion's criminality, I posit that if it's a crime, so is the genocide of twenty-seven thousand earthly species a year. The real question is: why are religious activists so hot about saving this one kind of life? Is "fundamentalists'" routine distinction between human and other kinds of life appropriate to the times?
I would still classify myself as pro-life, but with the clarification that I would not move to outlaw abortion. And I agree with you entirely that our callous mistreatment of the environment and other species, resulting all too frequently in their complete destruction, is a heinous crime. Not being a “fundamentalist” religious activist, I can hardly presume to know what goes through their heads. To hazard a guess, I’d say they are so set on saving unborn human life out of a combination of faith, fear, and closed mindedness. I think the elimination of the practice of abortion is an excellent goal, but I think most of my fellow pro-lifers tend to strive for it it in a rather backwards fashion. I could continue at length, but I sense this is not the heart of your question, so I will move on to the final part.
I think it is extremely foolish and arrogant of us to put ourselves above and before all others. I include myself in this language because I know myself to be complicit in the systems that are destroying us. Our planet’s ecosystem is intricate and complex, and, last I checked, we were nowhere near a complete understanding of its workings. It is so arrogant for us to assume that any of Earth’s species is superfluous. I believe the world was created to work together as a whole unit of interdependent parts. I may not understand the function of each, but that doesn’t lead me to assume that they are unnecessary.
I don’t think the “fundamentalists” are the only ones who routinely consider human life superior to and more important than other kinds. But no, I do not think such a distinction is appropriate to any time. Other kinds of life are essential to our kind of life, and thus they are important for us. So, even if we decide to do it for purely selfish reasons, the only smart move available to us is to stop abusing the rest of creation.
4. Io triumphe! What makes you proud about your time at Oxy, if anything?
Hmm, pride. An interesting choice of words. It’s almost hard for me to remember who I was before I started at Oxy, so many things have changed since then. To put it perhaps more accurately, I went a long way toward growing into myself while I was at Oxy, and I guess you could say I’m proud of that.
One of the first things that jumps to mind is that I somehow changed paths from the future elementary school teacher I thought I was when I started there and the future minister of word and sacrament I think I am today. I’m not sure how much Oxy itself had to do with that, but I do know that my experiences with the United Faiths Council and other religious life groups and events on campus really helped instill in me a sense of the importance, validity, and integrity of other faith traditions, and that is at the core of my worldview today.
I would also say that I am proud of the way I grew as a musician during my four years at Oxy, both in the music department generally and the choral groups specifically. I learned a lot that continues to inform and enrich my existence today, for which I am extremely grateful.
I am also grateful for all of the wonderful people I was privileged to meet while at Oxy. But here I am straying for the question: things about which I am proud.
I think I would say generally that my years at Oxy were a time of opening for me. I became much more aware of the world, of politics, of other points of view, and other lifestyles than I had been previously. I also learned a tremendous amount about myself, including the depths of depravity I am capable of reaching. While I am not proud of having reached those depths, I am proud of having learned from the experience.
My time at Oxy helped mold me into the person I am today: a more humble, mindful, and faithful woman.
5. Do you feel that the country is actually becoming more conservative, or that it simply likes the idea that its leaders are? Why?
I don’t think the country as a whole is actually becoming more conservative, nor do I think it likes the idea that its leaders are. I do think that the country as a whole is becoming less responsible, less educated about matters of substance, and more self-centered.
Those of us who fall on the liberal side of the spectrum seem to like to complain about politicians, but we don’t do much about changing things. Some of us don’t even vote. Now, I realize this is a generalization, and I know the same could be said of many conservatives, but somehow they at least convey the illusion of unity and engagement on certain key issues.
I think, at heart, it’s all a result of our mindlessly believing the lies we are exposed to every day through the media. We have allowed marketing gurus to brainwash us now to the point where we rarely exercise whatever innate capacity we might have for critical thinking. It’s convenient (although lethal) for us to believe that we really can have an instant fix for all of our problems, and we keep buying the products (and politicians) who promise us these cures, somehow forgetting what our own experience should tell us: that reality is never “As seen on TV.”
The only explanation I can offer is that the conservatives have better marketing gurus.
Also, if you'd like me to ask you some questions, you can leave a comment here. :-)