Tuesday, April 18, 2006
About Faith, Religion, Religiosity
I've been reading a lot about religion lately. In the current issue of the New Yorker there is an article about a split in the Episcopal church because of the ordination of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire. It seems that there are a lot of people who think that the concept of a gay bishop is something new and horrible. There have been thousands of bishops consecrated since the beginning of the Christian church. I wonder how many of them were gay. I know that in the Catholic or Roman branch of the church there was at least one gay cardinal during the last century. He was a social friend of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.
I was an enthusiastic "high-church" Episcopalian about sixty years ago. After a while, especially after I was married, my earlier religious beliefs returned and I dropped out. I still attend church services occasionally. Lately I've attended a few Catholic services. We have a care-giver for my wife. The care-giver is a devout Roman Catholic and occasionally succeeds in persuading my wife and me to attend a service in that church.
A few weeks ago I attended Sunday services in a near-by Episcopal church. I was rather disappointed that the liturgy had changed from what I was familiar with sixty years ago. The beautiful Shakespearean language of Archbishop Laud has been put away and the liturgy is now recited in 20th century English. In addition, the Episcopalians in that church, at least, have done something with the Lord's Prayer that I have not yet become comfortable with. You may know that the traditional form of the prayer, the one I learned in Methodist Sunday school as a child, contains the words "trespass" and "trespasses:"
...Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have trespassed against us...
Some Christian Protestant denominations have substituted "debts" and "debtors" in place of trespasses. The Catholics still say "trespasses." The Episcopalians in the church I attended used the words "sins" and "sinned against us." I am bothered by the use of the word "sin" as a replacement of "trespass." To me, a trespass may be a sin or it may be a mistake. In either case, one must do somelthing to atone for or correct the action. Even an innocent mistake can cause harm or grief to another person. At the very least, an apology is called for. Committing a sin is a much more serious matter than a mere trespass, although sins are a form of trespass.
I didn't phrase that idea very well. A trespass could be a simple mistake, a mistake caused by carelessness or arrogance, a social blunder, harm from a serious accident, or a sin. A sin is a deliberate act, a defiance or a separation of oneself from moral and ethical behavior, a deliberate violation of one of the commandments of one's religion. The word "sin" is derived from the word "sunder," and denotes the "separation" or "sundering" of oneself from the community, especially by committing an act that is wrong or harmful to the community. "Trespass," on the other hand, means "pass across" some territory or space that belongs to another person. One can trespass by intruding on another.
I meet once a month with other men who also have retired from the company I worked for before retirement. In one of our meetings, two or three of us compared our religious beliefs. We agreed that there probably is a God, but we also agreed that He doesn't go out of his way to perform miracles in response to prayers of the faithful. I am skeptical of the miraculous events that one has to believe if one is to be considered a devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew. Along with Thomas Jefferson I believe that Jesus lived, taught, and died. I don't believe he rose from the dead. Am I a Christian? I was baptized and confirmed as one. If baptism is the test, then I am a Christian. We know or believe that baptism was practised before Jesus became a teacher. The originator of that practice, St. John the Baptist, is remembered on June 24.
I've been thinking a lot about the purposes or usefulness of religion in our lives. Religion serves at least two purposes: achieving public morality and providing personal comfort. Public morality is served by a set of rules or examples of moral behavior. The teaching of Jesus and other great religious leaders provide these rules and examples. I try to follow the rules and live up to the examples. I don't always succeed.
Personal comfort is served by encouraging the individual to seek forgiveness for his various trespasses (errors, social blunders, crimes, etc.) and by provide solace for the guilty. It is also served by a promise of a better life or better existence for the individual after this life is finished. Good Christians and Good Muslims go to heaven. Good Buddhists achieve nirvana. Personal comfort is also achieved by teaching the faithful that bad behavior will be punished in the after-life. Bad Christians and Bad Muslims go to hell. Bad Buddhists are reborn as insects, and have to endure several deaths and rebirths before they again achieve human form.
These promises of rewards and punishments can not be verified by any argument outside the bounds of the particular religion that teaches them. On the other hand, the value of the moral teachings can be challenged and validated by arguments completely separate from any religious teaching. It is self-evident that it is good for our species if we behave decently to each other. A simple rule is for each of us to imagine ourselves in the place of another. How would we wish to be treated? Then, we should treat others as we would wish them to treat us. That particular rule is more ancient than any existing historical religion. It is as old as human society itself.
I admit to having many prejudices and cranky opinions. Some religious people bother me in that they do not follow the "public morality" aspect of religion. To them, it is necessary and sufficient that they have "faith." They emphasize the "personal comfort" aspect of religion and neglect the other. "Good works" are not necessary; only deep abiding faith counts. Too often that "faith" embraces some of the worst prejudices I can imagine. For example, one American cleric believes (or at least says) that such disasters as Hurricane Katrina and the terrorists' destruction of the World Trade Center and damage to the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 are examples of God's punishment of a faithless and sinful people.
I was an enthusiastic "high-church" Episcopalian about sixty years ago. After a while, especially after I was married, my earlier religious beliefs returned and I dropped out. I still attend church services occasionally. Lately I've attended a few Catholic services. We have a care-giver for my wife. The care-giver is a devout Roman Catholic and occasionally succeeds in persuading my wife and me to attend a service in that church.
A few weeks ago I attended Sunday services in a near-by Episcopal church. I was rather disappointed that the liturgy had changed from what I was familiar with sixty years ago. The beautiful Shakespearean language of Archbishop Laud has been put away and the liturgy is now recited in 20th century English. In addition, the Episcopalians in that church, at least, have done something with the Lord's Prayer that I have not yet become comfortable with. You may know that the traditional form of the prayer, the one I learned in Methodist Sunday school as a child, contains the words "trespass" and "trespasses:"
...Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have trespassed against us...
Some Christian Protestant denominations have substituted "debts" and "debtors" in place of trespasses. The Catholics still say "trespasses." The Episcopalians in the church I attended used the words "sins" and "sinned against us." I am bothered by the use of the word "sin" as a replacement of "trespass." To me, a trespass may be a sin or it may be a mistake. In either case, one must do somelthing to atone for or correct the action. Even an innocent mistake can cause harm or grief to another person. At the very least, an apology is called for. Committing a sin is a much more serious matter than a mere trespass, although sins are a form of trespass.
I didn't phrase that idea very well. A trespass could be a simple mistake, a mistake caused by carelessness or arrogance, a social blunder, harm from a serious accident, or a sin. A sin is a deliberate act, a defiance or a separation of oneself from moral and ethical behavior, a deliberate violation of one of the commandments of one's religion. The word "sin" is derived from the word "sunder," and denotes the "separation" or "sundering" of oneself from the community, especially by committing an act that is wrong or harmful to the community. "Trespass," on the other hand, means "pass across" some territory or space that belongs to another person. One can trespass by intruding on another.
I meet once a month with other men who also have retired from the company I worked for before retirement. In one of our meetings, two or three of us compared our religious beliefs. We agreed that there probably is a God, but we also agreed that He doesn't go out of his way to perform miracles in response to prayers of the faithful. I am skeptical of the miraculous events that one has to believe if one is to be considered a devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew. Along with Thomas Jefferson I believe that Jesus lived, taught, and died. I don't believe he rose from the dead. Am I a Christian? I was baptized and confirmed as one. If baptism is the test, then I am a Christian. We know or believe that baptism was practised before Jesus became a teacher. The originator of that practice, St. John the Baptist, is remembered on June 24.
I've been thinking a lot about the purposes or usefulness of religion in our lives. Religion serves at least two purposes: achieving public morality and providing personal comfort. Public morality is served by a set of rules or examples of moral behavior. The teaching of Jesus and other great religious leaders provide these rules and examples. I try to follow the rules and live up to the examples. I don't always succeed.
Personal comfort is served by encouraging the individual to seek forgiveness for his various trespasses (errors, social blunders, crimes, etc.) and by provide solace for the guilty. It is also served by a promise of a better life or better existence for the individual after this life is finished. Good Christians and Good Muslims go to heaven. Good Buddhists achieve nirvana. Personal comfort is also achieved by teaching the faithful that bad behavior will be punished in the after-life. Bad Christians and Bad Muslims go to hell. Bad Buddhists are reborn as insects, and have to endure several deaths and rebirths before they again achieve human form.
These promises of rewards and punishments can not be verified by any argument outside the bounds of the particular religion that teaches them. On the other hand, the value of the moral teachings can be challenged and validated by arguments completely separate from any religious teaching. It is self-evident that it is good for our species if we behave decently to each other. A simple rule is for each of us to imagine ourselves in the place of another. How would we wish to be treated? Then, we should treat others as we would wish them to treat us. That particular rule is more ancient than any existing historical religion. It is as old as human society itself.
I admit to having many prejudices and cranky opinions. Some religious people bother me in that they do not follow the "public morality" aspect of religion. To them, it is necessary and sufficient that they have "faith." They emphasize the "personal comfort" aspect of religion and neglect the other. "Good works" are not necessary; only deep abiding faith counts. Too often that "faith" embraces some of the worst prejudices I can imagine. For example, one American cleric believes (or at least says) that such disasters as Hurricane Katrina and the terrorists' destruction of the World Trade Center and damage to the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 are examples of God's punishment of a faithless and sinful people.
