Unitarian Universalists, the Bible, and god

“The Bible isn’t like God’s version of Apple’s ‘Terms and Conditions’ agreement.  The Bible doesn’t lay out before us God’s terms and conditions, where failure to adhere to one clause in the middle of page 87 will cause a breach of contract and banishment from God’s graces. The Bible is more like a grand narrative that reorders our imaginations and holds out for us an alternate way of seeing reality — with God at the heart of it rather than ourselves.” 

 

This quote is from an interesting article on a website called Faith Street, a site that helps people locate faith communities (including DuPage Unitarian Universalist Church) when they move to a new town.  Peter Eric Enns, a biblical scholar, theologian, and writer, was asked to list ten things he wishes everyone understood about the Bible, and this is one of those ten things.  You can read the entire article at http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/10/06/10-things-i-wish-everyone-knew-about-the-bible.

As I read this article, I thought about how many Unitarian Universalists experience the Christian Bible.  We certainly don’t accept it as an authoritarian God-given “Terms and Conditions” agreement.  I realize that some Unitarian Universalists see the Bible as relating to some other religious tradition, but not ours, and some Unitarian Universalists believe the Christian Bible has no place in our churches.  Yet, the Bible and the Christian religion are part of our history.  So how do we discuss the Bible and Christianity (and even god) if we don’t at least look at this part of our history?

Going back to the quote above, some Unitarian Universalists would have trouble with the sentence “The Bible is more like a grand narrative that reorders our imaginations and holds out for us an alternate way of seeing reality—with God at the heart of it rather than ourselves.”  I don’t think some Unitarian Universalists would have trouble with the first part of the idea that the Bible is be a grand narrative that has the potential to reorder a person’s imagination and/or holds out an alternative way of seeing reality.  Though many of Unitarian Universalists might not be attracted to that particular alternative way of seeing reality; my experience of Unitarian Universalists is that many would not find that statement deeply offensive.  I do think that the last part of the sentence “with God at the heart of it rather than ourselves” would give most Unitarian Universalists some trouble.

Many Unitarian Universalists have trouble with this word “god.”  Many Unitarian Universalists have come from a faith-home where that word was used to manipulate, abuse, control, and harass others.  And many Unitarian Universalists have a difficult time finding a new way to understand the word god that can make sense to them.  Certainly those Unitarian Universalists who understand the word “god” as representing supernaturalism would say the word has no meaning.  But words do have meaning.  And we, individually and collectively, decide what that meaning is.

For me, the word “god” means that there is a life-advancing force within the universe, within all things, that connects us to one another and all creation.  This meaning is not based on Biblical writings, but I guess I would also say it not in conflict with Biblical writings either.  

If we look at the last part of Enns’ sentence and keep in mind my definition of god, I wonder how many Unitarian Universalists, how many people who see themselves as spiritual but not religious, and how many humanists would reconsider the Bible as useful in their spiritual journey:  “The Bible is more like a grand narrative that reorders our imaginations and hold out for us an alternate way of seeing reality—with a life-advancing force within the universe, within all things, that connects us to one another and all creation at the heart of it rather than ourselves.”  I believe that the Bible was written by people of faith for people of faith to use as a narrative to aid them on their life journey.  So consider this: the Christian Bible is a grand narrative of stories: stories that might open up our imaginations, stories that might help us see the world in a different way, and stories that might help us find new ways to connect with one another and all creation.   Sit with those concepts for a little while, and notice what meaning percolate up through your mind and spirit.  Words do have meaning and our Unitarian Universalist congregations offer a place where questioners and seekers can not only explore the Upanishads, the Koran, and the Torah, but also the Bible in our free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

Some thoughts on God and Religion from a Physicist

I came across this article today in Scientific American (“Quantum Gravity Expert Says 'Philosophical Superficiality' Has Harmed Physics” By John Horgan; August 21, 2014).   It is an interview with physicist Carlo Rovelli of Aix-Marseille University and the Intitut Universitaire de France.  First here are some excerpts:

Horgan: Do you believe in God?

Rovelli: No.  But perhaps I should qualify the answer, because like this it is bit too rude and simplistic. I do not understand what “to believe in God” means. The people that “believe in God” seem like Martians to me.  I do not understand them.  I suppose this means that I “do not believe in God”. If the question is whether I think that there is a person who has created Heavens and Earth, and responds to our prayers, then definitely my answer is no, with much certainty.

If the question is whether I believe that “God” is a powerful something in the people, which causes a lot of disasters but also a lot of good, then of course I believe it.   In fact, I am extremely curious about religion. I think that we should study what is religion much more than what is done. There is a sort of taboo in this, a sort of respect towards people who “believe in God”, which makes it difficult to understand better.

I think that viewing the “belief in God” just as a bunch of silly superstitions is wrong. The “belief in God” is one form of human religious attitude, and human religious attitude is something very general and universal about our functioning. Something which is important for man, and we have not yet understood.

Horgan: Are science and religion compatible?

Rovelli: Of course yes: you can be great in solving Maxwell’s equations and pray to God in the evening.  But there is an unavoidable clash between science and certain religions, especially some forms of Christianity and Islam, those that pretend to be repositories of “absolute Truths.”  The problem is not that scientists think they know everything. It is the opposite: scientists know that there are things we simply do not know, and naturally question those who pretend to know.   Many religious people are disturbed by this, and have difficulty in coping with it.  The religious person says, “I know that God has created light saying, ‘Fiat Lux.’”  The scientist does not believe the story. The religious people feel threatened.  And here the clash develops.  But not all religions are like that. Many forms of Buddhism, for instance, have no difficulty with the continual critical attitude of science. Monotheistic religions, and in particular Islam and Christianity, are sometimes less intelligent.

I have an idea about the source of the conflict: there is beautiful research by anthropologists in Australia which shows that religious beliefs are often considered a-temporal but in reality change continuously and adapt to new conditions, new knowledge and so on.  This was discovered by comparing religious beliefs held by native Australians studied by anthropologists in the thirties and, much later, in the seventies.  So, in a natural situation, religious beliefs adapt to the change in man’s culture and knowledge.  The problem with Islam and Christianity is that many centuries ago somebody had the idea of writing down beliefs. So now some religious people are stuck with the culture and knowledge of centuries ago. They are fish trapped in a pond of old water.

This is a riveting dialogue, and I encourage you to read it in its entirety.

I consider myself a pantheist, which this is sort of a recent change for me.  For years, I had considered myself a theist, but the whole personal god idea was tripping me up.  Pantheism, god in all things or is all things (in other words, not a separate being), feels more right for me.  As I read this article, however, it occurs to me we might be better off thinking about the effect of religion and the apparent human need for religion or spirituality or community—in other words, what religion is—rather than what religion does, that is, like the specific rituals, creeds, dogmas.  I, like Rovelli, am very curious about religion (which work since I am a minister) and, for that matter, all religions.   I think there are innumerable ways to achieve a religious/spiritual experience—that feeling of ineffable peace, the connection to something more, enlightenment/new awareness, etc.— and no religion has the only ‘right’ way to get there.  I also believe that many religions offer viable ways to have that experience.  Religious community offers us have the opportunity to share and be reminded of the power of this kind of experience. 

As for Rovelli’s insights about God, (which are worthy of a second post, let’s see if I can get around to it) I am of two minds.  I do feel it is somewhat condescending to say that some people's beliefs are silly.  As a Unitarian Universalist, I take very seriously our Fourth Principle (a free and responsible search for truth and meaning).  I respect and try to understand another person's beliefs and faith.  I find a lot of energy in the idea that God is “one form of religions attitude, and human religious attitude is something very general and universal about our functioning.” Why do humans have this attitude and how does it function in our lives?  I do think that having some spiritual/religious beliefs/faith/connection to something larger is useful—if for no other reasons than to help one feel less alone, to feel less stressed, to have some tools to manage the issues that we all face as humans, to ground oneself in attitudes/behaviors that are more ethical/moral, including compassion and charity, and to affirm that change is possible in our world, in a word, hope.  So it is not a new concept to me that being spiritual (more individually oriented) or religious (more communally oriented) is general and universal.  

Religions have served a very important purpose in our lives and in our world (not to say they haven’t had their problems for they are, after all, composed of humans and we are, to a person, flawed).  I think people will continue to seek ways to ground themselves in the purposes that religions have served, even if they don’t go to church.   Diminishing feelings of isolation, reducing stress, and coping mechanisms, at least for me, are related to some need inside me.  I need faith in something larger than my own desires, hope that humanity and my life have some aspirations and meaning, and love for other creatures and creation, and I need ways to affirm these three regularly. Thus religion is vital for me.  You may want to consider how you affirm faith, hope, and love in your life.  I encourage you not to “see in the mirror dimly.”  Look in your heart, and use your mind, to learn more about what has meaning for you.