On religion, spirituality, faith and God

Preamble

2023 was an interesting year particularly in how some people described me. I was described as dishonest, as having blood on my hands, as being misogynistic, as having dangerous beliefs, as being unfit to parent because I taught my children values consistent with my religion, that I’m so indoctrinated that I am incapable of understanding the harm I’m causing, that I should be ashamed of myself, and that I’m an embarrassment to human kind. And that was just from atheists who believe all religion is harmful. Christian fundamentalists used used even worse descriptions because apparently I practise the wrong religion.

Overall I find little difference in how many atheists and religious fundamentalists understand, religion, spirituality, faith, and dare I say, God. Except that one group believes it’s the absolute Truth™, while the other believes it’s all BS™. There’s even agreement on what Christianity is, although one group believes it’s the greatest good to have happened in two millennia, while the other believes its the greatest evil to have hit this planet in the last 2000 years. Both groups seem reluctant to accept there are alternative ways of understanding religion, spirituality, faith and God, and for both of these groups, whatever I believe the terms mean, I’m wrong. I suppose one positive way of looking at this is that even when it comes to religion, atheist and Christian fundamentalists do sometimes agree – even if only to disagree with me and those who hold similar ideas.

One group will quote Bible passages as the authority to support their perspective while the other will quote dictionary definitions as the authority to support theirs. I think both sides sell themselves short. So here, very briefly is my understanding of religion, spirituality, faith and God

On religion

I see religion as a human phenomenon that arises from the interaction of culture, language, and experience. Religion is not a fixed or static entity, but a dynamic and evolving process that reflects the changing needs and values of human societies. It is not necessarily based on supernatural beliefs or divine revelations, but on human interpretations of reality and meaning. Religion is a way of expressing and exploring the human quest for identity, purpose, and transcendence.

On spirituality

Lloyd Geering defines spirituality as “the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things”. I agree. Spirituality is more personal and individual, while religion is more communal and institutional. Spirituality is not dependent on any particular religious tradition or doctrine, but can be found in various forms of art, literature, music, nature, and human relationships. It is an essential aspect of human life, as it helps people to cope with suffering, death, and the unknown

On faith

Faith is a human attitude of trust and confidence in the face of uncertainty and mystery. I am not convinced that faith is a matter of accepting certain propositions or dogmas as true, or of having a personal relationship with a supernatural being. It is not so much a gift from God, but a human response to the challenges and opportunities of life. Faith is not incompatible with reason, but rather complements and enriches it. I am convinced that faith is not static nor absolute, but dynamic and relative, as it changes and grows with experience and reflection.

On God

More than 50 years ago I came to understand God as a symbol of the ultimate or highest values to which human beings aspire. I see no evidence of a personal or interventionist God, who created the world, revealed himself in history, and will judge the living and the dead. God is entirely a human construct, a product of human imagination, language and culture. It is a construct that expresses the human sense of awe, wonder, and reverence for reality. I do not view God as an object of worship, but as a source of inspiration and guidance. God is not a fixed or eternal concept, but a changing and evolving one, that reflects the cultural and historical context of human beings.

Conclusion

I accept my understanding of religion, spirituality, faith and God, is not widely held and likely rejected by many atheists and those who follow the world’s major religions, especially those in the Abrahamic tradition. Certainly in Christian US and other parts of the Americas, and in Christian and Muslim Africa, my perspective is generally viewed negatively and even with hostility – as a heresy. But I am not unique in how I understand these terms. In Aotearoa, all mainline Christian denominations have liberal/progressive congregations and/or “branches” that to a greater or lesser degree hold similar views. Then there are communities with historical ties to Christianity such as Ephesus, and Sea Of Faith in Aotearoa that are based on concepts similar to those I have described above. And of course, within my faith community, while not universally held, similar concepts are expressed more openly and frequently than what might be considered historically Christian concepts.

Living in sin

What an outdated concept that is. And yet it still pops up in evangelical and fundamentalist Christian literature. I like this observation made in ministry at a Quaker wedding:

A woman came to me several years ago. She had left her abusive husband, had lived by herself for a number of years, then had met a wonderful man and began dating. After a year, they decided to move in together. She admitted feeling guilty about living together.

“We’re going to get married soon,” she told me. “I don’t like living in sin.”
I asked her why she called it living in sin.

She said she’d been taught that living together outside of marriage was sinful.
I told her I disagreed, that I thought living in sin was when you promised to love, honour, and cherish someone, then didn’t.

I think there’s a lot of married people living in sin.

I agree entirely.

Why God Never Received Tenure at Any University

I came across these reasons in a SOFiA (Sea Of Faith in Aotearoa) newsletter:

1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn’t published in a refereed journal.
5. Some even doubt he wrote it himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9. He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects.
10. When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
11. When subjects didn’t behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the Book.
13. Some say he had his son teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning the wrong subject.
15. Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.

Seems about right to me.

Quakerism and orthopraxy (with a little help from Bing Chat)

In a recent (offline) discussion in which I was more a fly on the wall than an active participant, the question arose of whether orthodoxy or orthopraxy was most important in one’s religion. The participants were mostly Evangelical Christians, so it’s not really surprising that the conclusion was that orthodoxy won the day, even though there was some disagreement over what the “correct belief(s)” should be.

The idea that orthodoxy was related “right belief” seemed to be generally accepted, but they were less sure about what orthopraxy was all about. So I took a moment to ask Bing Chat what orthopraxy means. Its reply was:

Orthopraxy means correct conduct, both ethical and liturgical, as opposed to faith or grace. It is often contrasted with orthodoxy, which emphasizes correct belief. The word is a neoclassical compound from the Greek orthos (correct) and praxis (action). Some religions, such as Hinduism, Judaism, and Eastern Christianity, are considered both orthopraxic and orthodoxic, as they guide adherents in both practice and belief. Other religions, such as Scientology and Santeria, are more orthopraxic than orthodoxic, as they focus more on ritual performance and obedience than on doctrine and theology. Orthopraxy can also be applied to secular contexts, such as medicine, law, or politics, where correct action is valued over correct opinion.

I found this answer interesting as some Friends describe Quakerism as being orthopraxic in contrast to traditional Christianity which they describe as being orthodoxic. I’ve done it myself. However our use of orthopraxy to describe Quakerism is inconsistent with the meaning provided by Bing Chat. So I did the obvious. I asked Bing Chat if it thought Quakerism in the liberal unprogrammed tradition is orthopraxic. The answer was longer and more nuanced than I expected.

The first part of its reply indicates that a yes or no answer is inadequate:

That is an interesting question. I think the answer depends on how one defines orthopraxy and how one evaluates the practice of liberal unprogrammed Quakers.

The second paragraph was almost word for word identical to the definition of orthopraxy given above, so I won’t repeat it. The third paragraph was a good attempt at describing Quakerism in the liberal unprogrammed tradition:

Liberal unprogrammed Quakers are a branch of the Religious Society of Friends, a historically Protestant Christian set of denominations. They practice unprogrammed worship, which means that they do not follow any prearranged or structured order of events or liturgy. They sit in silence and wait for the Spirit to move them to speak or read from Scripture or other literature. They emphasize the authority of the Inner Light, which is the presence of God in every person, and their membership contains both those who identify themselves as Christians and those who do not. They are often active in service work, but generally not in missionary or evangelical activities

The fourth paragraph sets out an argument supporting the idea that Quakerism is orthopraxic:

One could argue that liberal unprogrammed Quakers are orthopraxic, because they value the experience of the Spirit over the adherence to creeds or confessions. They do not have a formal doctrine or theology, but rather rely on the testimonies of peace, equality, integrity, and simplicity as guides for living. They do not have a hierarchy or clergy, but rather respect the priesthood of all believers. They do not impose their beliefs on others, but rather seek to listen and learn from different perspectives. They do not judge or condemn, but rather affirm and support.

I go along with that. But in the fifth paragraph Bing Chat provides an argument as to why Quakerism is not orthopraxic:

One could also argue that liberal unprogrammed Quakers are not orthopraxic, because they do not have a clear or consistent standard of correct conduct. They do not have a fixed or prescribed ritual, but rather allow for spontaneity and diversity. They do not have a common or shared belief, but rather allow for individual and collective discernment. They do not have a strict or binding authority, but rather encourage personal and communal responsibility. They do not have a definite or exclusive identity, but rather embrace openness and inclusiveness.

And I go along with that too. So is Quakerism orthopraxic or not? Bing Chat is clearly of the opinion that “it depends” as shown by the final paragraph:

Ultimately, I think the answer to your question depends on your own perspective and criteria. I hope this helps you to explore the topic further. Thank you for chatting with me. 😊

I find I am growing quite fond of Bing Chat as it seems to be much more nuanced in its “opinions” than a great many flesh and blood individuals I encounter on line and in person. Hats off the developers and programmers of Bing Chat.

Lloyd Geering: interpretation of God, Jesus, the human self, and a global ethic

Lloyd Geering is a New Zealand theologian who has challenged the traditional views of Christianity and religion in general. He has proposed a new interpretation of God, Jesus, and the human self, based on the insights of existentialism, humanism, and postmodernism. He has also called for a new global ethic, which values the diversity and interdependence of all life forms.

Geering’s interpretation of God is that God is not a supernatural being who created and governs the world, but a humanly created concept that expresses the human quest for meaning and value. He argues that God is a symbol of the ultimate concern of humanity, and that different cultures and religions have used different names and images for God. He also suggests that God is evolving along with human culture, and that the modern concept of God is more immanent and cosmic than transcendent and personal

Geering’s interpretation of Jesus is that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in a particular time and place, and who proclaimed a radical message of God’s kingdom as an alternative to the oppressive Roman empire and the corrupt Jewish establishment. He contends that Jesus was not divine or miraculous, but a human prophet who embodied the values of love, justice, and peace. He also maintains that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead, but that the resurrection is a metaphor for the continuing presence and influence of Jesus in the community of his followers

Geering’s interpretation of the human self is that the human self is not a fixed or eternal entity, but a dynamic and relational process that emerges from the interaction of the human body, mind, and environment. He claims that the human self is constantly changing and developing, and that it is shaped by the cultural and historical context in which it lives. He also asserts that the human self is not separate or superior to other forms of life, but part of the interconnected web of life that constitutes the biosphere

Geering’s call for a new global ethic is based on his recognition of the challenges and opportunities that the modern world presents to humanity. He acknowledges that the human species has reached a critical point in its history, where it faces the threats of ecological crisis, nuclear war, and social injustice, but also the possibilities of scientific discovery, technological innovation, and cultural diversity. He urges that humanity needs to develop a new global ethic that respects the dignity and rights of all life forms, and that fosters the values of cooperation, compassion, and creativity. He envisions that humanity can create a new global community that transcends the boundaries of nation, race, and religion, and that celebrates the common humanity and the unique differences of all people

These are some of the main aspects of Lloyd Geering’s proposals, which reflect his non-realist, historical-critical, progressive, and pluralistic approach to Christianity and religion. His proposals have been influential and controversial, and have provoked both admiration and criticism from different quarters. His proposals have also invited further dialogue and debate about the role and relevance of religion in the contemporary world, which, not surprisingly, is the purpose of this essay.

Sources for this essay include:

• Lloyd Geering – Wikipedia
• Sir Lloyd Geering at 100: ‘I find a lot of things to rejoice in’
• Book review: Geering a religious athiest?
• A hundred years of heresy
• How my thinking has changed – by Sir Lloyd Geering
• Google Books – Christianity Without God
• God is not dead yet, Dr. Geering
• Lloyd Geering – Springer Link

Being on the same page as Sir Lloyd Geering

This, in part, is an article I intended to post to celebrate Sir Lloyd Geering’s 105^th birthday on 26 February this year. As the anniversary came and went the article became less relevant until I had forgotten all about it until I rediscovered it a week or two ago as I was weeding out old unpublished articles. If it hadn’t been for an an article I read the previous day it would have been deleted, but the coincidence prompted me to a complete revision, and this is the result.

Although Sir Lloyd Geering was 31 years old when I was born, his religious journey and mine run almost in parallel in time and in outcome. I was unaware of his existence until he hit the headlines in 1966 when I was 17. He gave an address where he stated that the Bible’s record of Jesus’ death and resurrection is not true. Not long after he made the claim that humans have no “immortal soul”.

I was surprised how similar our ideas about religion were, although I would never have dared been open about them, as I knew I was considered to be odd. Adding another reason to be bullied by expressing what I mistakenly thought was a unique way of understanding religion was something I wished to avoid. Hearing someone with authority openly express what I feared to share did help me to see that I wasn’t a complete oddball/nutcase. It helped to restore in me a little confidence to trust my own experiences and my interpretation of them – something that society had been very successful in destroying up to that time.

For anyone wishing to know a little more about Sir Lloyd, I recommend reading Celebrating Sir Lloyd Geering: New Zealand’s ‘prophet of modernity’ published in September last year following the establishment of a scholarship in honour of his name.

Before I summarise where Sir Lloyd and I agree (we don’t agree on everything), I feel it is necessary to point out that he is not “some obscure theologian from New Zealand” who has nothing of value to contribute because “he’s a theologian” as claimed by some contributors to the comments on my blog. In this country he’s highly respected, as a glance at the list of honours that have been bestowed on him indicate. Please note that honours are granted after wide consultation and especially with those in the same and similar field(s) of endeavour, which in the case of Sir Lloyd is with other theologians, religious bodies and organisations, and academia. His honours include:

• Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 1988 Queen’s Birthday Honours for services to theological and religious studies
• Honorary Doctor of Literature degree by Victoria University of Wellington in 1988, where he was also Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies
• New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal for his services to New Zealand
• Honorary Doctor of Divinity degree by Knox College in Dunedin in 1992
• Principal Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (PCNZM) in the 2001 New Year Honours for services to religion and theology – redesignated as a Knight Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (GNZM) in 2009, after the restoration of titular honours by the New Zealand government
• honorary Doctor of Laws degree by Otago University in 2006
• Member of the Order of New Zealand (ONZ), New Zealand’s highest civilian honour, limited to 20 living people, in the 2007 New Year Honours for services to public and theological affairs

Where Sir Lloyd Geering and I agree:

• Religion is not a set of doctrines or beliefs, but a total mode of living that shapes one’s worldview, values, and practices. Religion is a human creation that evolves over time in response to changing historical and cultural contexts.
• Religion is not a supernatural phenomenon, but a natural and possibly necessary aspect of human existence. Religion serves various functions for human beings, such as providing meaning and purpose, expressing awe and wonder, fostering community and morality, and coping with suffering and death. Like every other aspect of human society, religion can also have negative effects, such as promoting violence, intolerance, and oppression.
• Religion needs to be reinterpreted and reformed for the contemporary world. For this age, it requires a global and ecological perspective that respects the diversity of religious traditions and the common humanity of all people. It calls for a critical and creative approach to religion that engages with the challenges and opportunities of the present age. The religious organisation to which I belong also holds this view, revising its collective insights every 10 to 20 years.
• God is not a personal or transcendent being, but the embodiment of one’s highest values. The traditional concept of God as an external agent who intervenes in human affairs or reveals divine truths serves no useful purpose today, nor does the idea of God as a metaphysical reality or a ground of being.
• God is a symbol or metaphor that expresses one’s ultimate concern or commitment. God is the name we give to what we value most in life, such as love, justice, peace, or beauty. God is not an object of worship, but a subject of aspiration. God is not something we believe in, but something we live for.
• God is not a fixed or universal concept, but a dynamic and contextual one. God changes as human values change over time and across cultures. God reflects our best hopes and ideals, as well as our worst fears and failures. God challenges us to grow and change, as well as to critique and transform our society.
• God is not a matter of faith, but a matter of experience. God is not revealed by authority or tradition, but by personal insight and conscience. God is not encountered by prayer or ritual, but by action and service. God is not found by looking up or out, but by looking within and around.

There are other theologians who share a similar perspective to Geering – that God is not a supernatural being, but a human construction or symbol. For example, Paul Tillich, a German-American theologian, argued that God is not a personal being, but the “ground of being” or the ultimate reality that transcends human categories. John Shelby Spong, an American bishop and author, proposed that God is not an external entity, but the source of life and love within us. Don Cupitt, a British philosopher and former priest, suggested that God is a human creation that expresses our ideals and values.

These theologians are considered as non-theistic or post-theistic – they do not affirm the existence of a personal God who intervenes in human affairs. They are also influenced by modern philosophy, science and biblical criticism, which challenge the traditional views of God and religion. They seek to reinterpret Christianity in a way that is relevant and meaningful for contemporary people.

Thoughts on autism, religion, culture and language and their intersections: Introduction

I was originally going to title this topic something along the lines of “My experiences of the intersection of being autistic (undiagnosed for 60 years), being religious, being in a mixed marriage (by the way of ethnicity, language and religion), living in a liberal, secular, bicultural, multi ethnic society, and how language and social expectations affect communication across these intersections“. A little bit long and yet still not quite defining what I wish to say over a series of posts starting with this introduction.

Being autistic in a neurotypical world is fraught with difficulties, not least of which is communication. Because of how I communicate I have been described as deceitful, dishonest, devious, disingenuous, confused, incoherent and a liar, amongst many other derogatory terms. Perhaps from a non-autistic perspective it may seem so, but it most certainly not my intent. I earnestly try to be unambiguous, accurate and truthful at all times. I abandoned trying to be succinct a long time ago as doing so guarantees a misunderstanding of what I am trying to communicate, so I tend to be somewhat wordy as I throw in analogies and examples to hopefully illustrate what I mean.

Autism is usually defined in terms of deficits – for example: “Deficits in social communication and interaction”; “Lack of facial expression”; “Lack of eye contact”; “Not engaging in imaginative play”. This is how the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, version 5) defines autism and is the “Bible” used by the American medical profession to diagnose and treat mental disorders. For this post I will briefly touch on Deficits in social communication and interaction. At best, that description is deceptive, at worst, it is patently false.

Until the internet became ubiquitous, autistic folk had little to no opportunity to meet and share experiences with other autistics. Before the internet I had never met another autistic person, and although I might have met as many as a handful “in the flesh” in the past 20 years, I communicate with fellow autistics every day online. We were lead to believe that we were little more than a list of deficits. We do indeed struggle when communicating with neurotypical people. But now we can meet in the tens or even the hundreds, and on such occasions it is the neurotypical minority of those who have joined us who display the very same deficits usually attributed to autistics. It has become evident that autistics can communicate just as effectively as neurotypicals when that communication is with others of the same neurology. The problem arises when people of different neurologies communicate. As neurotypical folk outnumber autistic folk by about sixty to one, usually the blame is placed entirely at the feet of autistics.

What I am describing here is the double empathy problem. It’s a theory put forward by Dr Damian Milton around 2010 and has been slowly gaining traction ever since. The theory does fit the experience of autistics and most of us believe the available evidence supports it, but the non-autistic community seems to be less willing to even contemplate the concept let alone investigate it. Here follows a very brief summary of the double empathy theory:

Simply put, the theory of the double empathy problem suggests that when people with very different experiences of the world interact with one another, they will struggle to empathise with each other. This is likely to be exacerbated through differences in language use and comprehension.

Dr D Milton, 02 March 2018

Perhaps I could have titled this series “The double Empathy Problem”, as it seems apparent to me that the theory fits not only the issue of mutual understanding between autistics and non-autistics, but also mutual understanding between those of different religious persuasions, and those with different ethic, cultural and language experiences. However, I don’t intend this series to be theoretical or based on anything other than my own personal experiences and how those experiences have coloured the way I perceive and respond to the world in which I live. So for the meantime, the current title will remain.

I wish this series to be an exploration with no destination in mind. I am 73 years of age and autistic, although I and everyone else was unaware of that fact for 60 years. I have suffered from migraines for a little over 60 years, and of that I have been painfully aware (pun intended). More recently I have discovered I have aphantasia (an inability to form mental images), alexithymia (emotional blindness) and prosopagnosia (face blindness), and although I have probably had these from the day I was born I was not aware that how I experienced the world was any different from that of my peers.

I have no idea where this series may lead nor if it will go far. It’s been an on and off affair for some time in the wordlessness of my mind. Yes, that’s another unusual characteristic I possess. I don’t, can’t think in words, again something I didn’t realise others could do until perhaps a year or two ago. There’s probably a scientific name for this condition but I have not seen any reference to the condition let alone a name for it. Converting thoughts into words is a laborious procedure if I can’t draw on my stored source of preconstructed or memorised word sequences, so it’s unlikely that future posts in this series will occur at frequent intervals. For example I started this post at 8 this morning and apart from an hour while attending a Zoom meeting, and breaks for refreshments and calls of nature, I have been working solidly on it all day. It’s now 11pm. That works out at less than 100 words per hour!

If you wish to join me on this journey, you’re more than welcome. If you wish to contribute a comment or question my interpretation of my experiences, please feel free to do so. What I will not tolerate is any attempt at gaslighting. If you don’t know what that is, Google it, or wait until I cover the topic in a future post in this series. I have been subjected to gaslighting, both intentional and unintentional for much of my life as no one, including myself, realised my experiences were any different from those of my peers. I now know differently, so please don’t try.

And on that note, I will pause for now.

Where/who/what is God?

When God is no longer a person up there in the sky, where is God? When God is no longer personified in ways which can be controlled and manipulated by the powerful, who is God? When we stop creating images of God which are mere projections of ourselves, what is God?

Rev. Dawn Hutchings, pastordawn Sunday 5 December 2021

The above paragraph is from the sermon NATIVITY – a parable born in the darkness of trauma given by Pastor Dawn. She is one of several Christian pastors/preachers I follow on WordPress. Pastor Dawn Identifies herself as a 21st Century Progressive Christian Pastor. I suspect most of the others would also identify in a similar vein, even if they haven’t identified specifically as such.

The sermon itself, places into perspective the minds of the gospel writers in light of the genocide being committed against the Jews by the Roman empire that started in the latter part of the first century AD, and continued for another fifty or so years. I agree with Pastor Dawn, that without understanding the circumstances of the writers, it’s not possible to understand their intent, nor the meaning of what they wrote.

Even though the Gospels were written nearly 2000 years ago, our modern understanding of the effects of social upheaval, and how people responded to tyranny and genocide at the end of the first century means that we should be able interpret their contents in a nonliteral way, which I suspect was the intent of the writers, and perhaps implicitly understood by the first generation Christians who were predominantly Jews facing extreme persecution by the Roman Empire – as Pastor Dawn describes it “the first Holocaust”.

Given the conditions of the time, why any thinking person today should believe that the Gospels must be read as factual history is beyond me. And while I can understand that fundamentalist indoctrination might be reason why some Christians conflate universal truths told in the form of storytelling, parables, metaphors and symbolism with historical facts, I struggle to understand why so many non Christians also hold a similar view – that the gospels are meant to be understood literally so are therefore a pack of lies. Neither perspective is accurate and both do an injustice to the works of art contained within the Bible.

Pastor Dawn offers a plausible explanation as to how early Christians came to deify Jesus. Although she doesn’t mention it in the sermon, Roman emperors of the day were deified and surprise, surprise, myths were created claiming some to be the offspring of a union between a mortal and a god. At least one of them had a star hovering in the sky to announce the birth. Under the circumstances, attaching a similar story to the birth of Jesus seems an obvious way of describing the significance of Jesus and his teachings to his early followers. The symbolism would have been very obvious to those of the day.

I’m a firm believer in what Quakers describe as “continuing revelation“. This can be understood in many ways, (old Quaker saying: Ask four Quakers, get five answers) but my take on it is that with new knowledge comes new understandings (of the world around us and of us as individuals and communities). While I vehemently disagree with Richard Dawkins’ view of religion, I can thank him for naming (but not originating) an evolutionary model to explain what Quakers have intuitively known for generations: that ideas, values, concepts of morality, or art, be they religious or otherwise do not stand still. They change over time.

Dawkins coined the term meme to describe the mechanism by which ideas and concepts are inherited from generation to generation, and in a way similar to how genes combine and mutate and subsequently succeed or die out, so do memes. An example might be the concept of slavery as it evolved in the West and culminated in the horrors associated with slavery in America. In its heyday, most people in southern USA considered slavery to be part of the natural order of the world. Today, remnants of that concept remain in the form of racism, it’s a meme that has mutated by not (yet) died out completely.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Christian history should be aware how much Christianity has changed (evolved) over the centuries. Let’s face it, Jesus was a Jew, in both ethnicity and religion. His desire was reform, to place an emphasis on ethics and social justice rather than rigid ceremony and law. It was not to create a new religion. I have no doubt that he would find Reform Judaism closer to his goals than most (perhaps all) forms of Christianity.

Meanwhile Christianity evolved into a multiplicity of forms – some developing characteristics that expanded on the ideals of the first followers of Jesus and some that developed traits that Jesus strongly opposed. I see that as an inevitable and natural outcome of the evolutionary process. Just as organisms evolve, so do religions. If they don’t evolve to adapt to their environment then they either become restricted to a niche environment to which they are suited or they die out.

Evolution also applies to our concept(s) of God(s). One characteristic that most fundamentalist Christians and many atheists have in common, is that they have an almost identical notion of how God is defined. Both seem to be unable to grasp the fact the Christian God has been under constant evolutionary change from the moment Christianity became a movement – even before it moved from being a heresy of judaism to a movement followed by Gentiles.

Some Christian fundamentalist movements will insist that God hasn’t evolved. He (it’s always ‘He‘) has always been the same, only no one fully understood the scriptures until the founder/leader of that particular movement/sect discovered their “True” meaning. In extreme cases theirs is the only “Truth”, and any who believe otherwise are heretics, deservedly destined to whatever fate their God has reserved for non-believers.

Atheists can find no evidence to support the existence of any god as an entity, and I have no issue with that. In fact, I concur. But then some atheists make the assumption that every form of religion must, of necessity, include a conviction that at least one deity or supernatural entity lies at its heart, even if that means shoehorning their concept of a non-existing deity into faith traditions that have evolved different notions of what God is (or is not).

I belong to a 350 year old faith tradition commonly referred to as the Quakers, and to a particular branch that in the 20th and 21st centuries is often described as liberal Quakerism, although in many ways it is the most traditional branch when it comes to practising our faith. In the short history of Quakerism, there is ample evidence of Dawkins’ memes in action. What is now viewed as the liberal branch were the conservatives in the eighteenth century, holding true to the tradition that everyone has direct access to the divine without the need for any intermediaries such as clergy or scripture, whereas the progressives/liberals of the day embraced the new evangelism and biblical authority that was sweeping through Christianity at that time and adopted articles of faith, creeds, clergy, and much else that is found within the evangelical movement.

In evolutionary terms evangelical Quakerism has been the most successful branch within the Quaker movement with about 85% of Quakers worldwide belonging to one of the evangelical branches, whereas the then conservative, and now very liberal branch account for around 12% of all Quakers, and confined to Britain and former British settler colonies (such as Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, and Canada), Western Europe, and some parts of the USA.

My reason for the (extremely) truncated description of Quaker branches is that on many occasions in the blogosphere, I have been “corrected” for making claims about Quaker beliefs and practices that are true for Aotearoa, but incorrect when referring to Quakerism in many other parts of the world. In fact I’ve been told in no uncertain terms by one atheist blogger that I have no right to call myself a Quaker as I don’t profess to be a Christian. Whenever I refer to Quaker beliefs and practices, my only point of reference is the religious community I am connected to (Quakers Aotearoa, Te Hāhi Tūhauwiri). Please keep this in mind whenever I refer to Quaker beliefs and practices. I accept that Quakers in many parts of the world have different beliefs and practices, but I am less familiar with those.

So, back to the question of where/who/what is God. For atheists and Christian Fundamentalists, the Answer is simple. For the former, there is no such thing, end of story. For the latter there is no doubt of “His” existence, and they can (and do frequently) quote passage after passage from the Bible to support their claim. For the rest of us it’s not so simple. God has evolved and continues to evolve.

Religion and superstition

Are they the same thing? Many of my regular readers will will be unequivocal about their answer – it will be Yes!

I’m not persuaded. And my reason for holding such a position is that it depends on what one means by religion and superstition. Obviously these two terms will have slightly (or significantly) different meanings depending on the society and culture in which one resides. I live in Aotearoa, and there is absolutely no doubt that what these two words mean here is very different from what they mean in the Bible Belt of the USA. I’ll leave it to others to define these terms for other parts of the globe, but whenever I refer to religion or superstition, I can do no better than to yield to the view of this country’s most celebrated theologian – Sir Lloyd Geering.

Sir Lloyd defines religion as:

A total mode of the interpreting and living of life.

He goes on to explain:

Everybody who takes life seriously, in my view, is taking the first steps in religion. And this definition of religion, fortunately, covers all the types of religions we’ve had or will have in the future, because it recognises that religion is a human product. Religion is what we humans have evolved in our culture to enable us to make meaning of life, and to live together in the most harmonious way.

He defines superstition as:

a belief or practice for which there is no longer any rational basis, because it has survived from the cultural context where it could be deemed reasonable

Sir Lloyd suggests that the creation myths (yes, myths – there’s two versions in Genesis) were an attempt at explaining how the world came into being and humanity’s relationship to it, and given their understanding of the world around them at the time and information available to them, it was reasonable to hold such a belief. If you like, the two myths represent two theories of creation.

But to continue to believe the creation myths as being true given our current understanding of the universe, is to believe in superstition. Similar arguments can be made about a physical resurrection of Jesus, the existence of heaven and hell, the Immaculate Conception, the miracles described in Old an New Testaments, gender roles, human rights, to name just a few.

To insist that to be a Christian, one must believe such superstitions, as some Christians and some atheists do, is to fail to understand the true nature of religion.

Why I am a Quaker: reason #5

Democratic decision-making.

By this I don’t mean one person, one vote – that can result in tyranny by the majority. What I mean is the type of decision-making where all voices can be heard, where we seek unity about the wisest course of action.

To be effective, the process requires that everyone come ready to participate fully by sharing their experiences and knowledge, by listening respectfully to the experiences and knowledge brought by others, and by remaining open to new insights and ideas. When everyone present is able to recognize the same truth, the meeting has reached unity.

The practices used to reach unity have been refined over a period of almost 400 years, and is now being taken up by other groups where a genuine desire for unity is sought. It can be a slow and lengthy path on the way to reaching unity, but it’s a process in which there are no losers (or winners, for that matter).