The quotation from the Dalai Lama for January 2 says that Buddhism is "more than a religion. It is a science of the mind." (That reminded me of Ernest Holmes, but I won't go there now.) And on January 7, the Dalai Lama made a reference to "Buddhist psychology."
I have, more than once, remarked that Jesus was a master psychologist. I have even had the courage to say that if you remove religion from your reading of his teachings, they sound a lot like psychology. When I say such a daring thing, most people look at me as though I had just gotten out of my Venusian spaceship.
Why are we so reluctant to acknowledge the link between religion and psychology? Whichever way you choose - the pastor's or the counsellor's - you will find increased self-knowledge, a greater degree of inner peace, and a stronger ability to understand and cope with life.
Jesus was a master psychologist. He told us to find ourselves by giving our lives to things larger than ourselves; isn't that good psychology? He told us to forgive over and over and not to hold grudges; don't we understand that it is healthy for us to do things like that? He told us to love our neighbor as ourselves; if we could do that, we would be able to make a better world.
I see no reason to deny that religion and psychology are related to each other. And I don't understand why people are so reluctant to recognize that connection. Religion and psychology are not mutually exclusive. They approach spiritual/mental health from different directions but they both guide you to it. And if you can find such health, surely that is important in itself; you're free to choose your path to it.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Calendar: January 1 and January 3
For my 2008 desk calendar, I bought a page-a-day collection of quotations by the Dalai Lama. I did this for two reasons: As much as I love cats, I needed a change from the pictures of cats on my 2007 calendar; and I was ready for a calendar that could give me a little food for thought.
My plan is that when the sayings push my buttons, I will do my thinking about it here. I haven't exactly made any resolutions, but I am determined to practice my writing and thinking skills, and this is a good place to do so.
Andrews McNeel Publishing is the publisher of the calendar, in case they need their "plug" here.
For January 1, the calendar says: "The whole point of transforming our heart and mind is to find happiness. We all have the natural desire to be happy and the wish to overcome suffering. This is a fact, so we can make it our starting point."
What that points out to me is that every human on this rock wants the same things. We want good lives, we want good health, we want material needs and maybe a few comforts besides, and we hope our children can have more of the same when they are adults.
That being said, I will make my best effort this year to realize, whenever I disagree with somebody or really and truly dislike and disrespect someone, that the other person and I still agree about more things than we disagree about. There is someone I will see tonight, in fact, who is lacking in discipline in a way that affects the way she will run the two rehearsals I'm going to attend. My frustration has gotten to the point that I began praying for her for about a month ago. Clearly, she provides one place where I can apply my new insight.
If we could recognize our commonalities, and learn to tolerate our differences, this would be a different world - in our communities, our nation, and the whole planet. I have no influence over those folks in the Middle East who seem to thrive on intolerance and violence. But I can work on it myself. And I will.
The page for January 3 goes on about happiness. I am not going to try to quote it fully, but it says that the key to happiness is inner peace and the greatest obstacles to that are the negative emotions of anger, fear, and suspicion. Any negative emotion, I presume, would become such an obstacle; the possibilities are not limited to the ones he mentioned. The Dalai Lama goes on to say that love, compassion, and a sense of universal responsibility are the sources of peace and happiness.
I think love and compassion go together; a sense of universal responsibility could very easily be part of the package also. We are losing the idea that we live in a community; it's one for all and one for all now. All for one and one for all is disappearing. We can do whatever we desire, and we have the right to do it just because we can, and that ends the discussion. Whether it causes needless hurt, whether it destroys, whether it harms the larger community - none of that matters any more. To give up something you would like, or honestly believe you deserve, for someone else? Even for the whole community? Funky!
But then, if we all desire the same things for ourselves and our children, can we not give up some things for them? Can we change our driving habits, for instance, to try to help the environmental issues concerned with our gasoline emissions? Or do we think that's what other people need to do, but not us?
So what I conclude after pondering these two quotations from the Dalai Lama, a man whom I deeply respect, is not especially earth-shattering or brilliant, but we can't say it too often.
We are all in this together. It is time for us to understand that and act on it.
My plan is that when the sayings push my buttons, I will do my thinking about it here. I haven't exactly made any resolutions, but I am determined to practice my writing and thinking skills, and this is a good place to do so.
Andrews McNeel Publishing is the publisher of the calendar, in case they need their "plug" here.
For January 1, the calendar says: "The whole point of transforming our heart and mind is to find happiness. We all have the natural desire to be happy and the wish to overcome suffering. This is a fact, so we can make it our starting point."
What that points out to me is that every human on this rock wants the same things. We want good lives, we want good health, we want material needs and maybe a few comforts besides, and we hope our children can have more of the same when they are adults.
That being said, I will make my best effort this year to realize, whenever I disagree with somebody or really and truly dislike and disrespect someone, that the other person and I still agree about more things than we disagree about. There is someone I will see tonight, in fact, who is lacking in discipline in a way that affects the way she will run the two rehearsals I'm going to attend. My frustration has gotten to the point that I began praying for her for about a month ago. Clearly, she provides one place where I can apply my new insight.
If we could recognize our commonalities, and learn to tolerate our differences, this would be a different world - in our communities, our nation, and the whole planet. I have no influence over those folks in the Middle East who seem to thrive on intolerance and violence. But I can work on it myself. And I will.
The page for January 3 goes on about happiness. I am not going to try to quote it fully, but it says that the key to happiness is inner peace and the greatest obstacles to that are the negative emotions of anger, fear, and suspicion. Any negative emotion, I presume, would become such an obstacle; the possibilities are not limited to the ones he mentioned. The Dalai Lama goes on to say that love, compassion, and a sense of universal responsibility are the sources of peace and happiness.
I think love and compassion go together; a sense of universal responsibility could very easily be part of the package also. We are losing the idea that we live in a community; it's one for all and one for all now. All for one and one for all is disappearing. We can do whatever we desire, and we have the right to do it just because we can, and that ends the discussion. Whether it causes needless hurt, whether it destroys, whether it harms the larger community - none of that matters any more. To give up something you would like, or honestly believe you deserve, for someone else? Even for the whole community? Funky!
But then, if we all desire the same things for ourselves and our children, can we not give up some things for them? Can we change our driving habits, for instance, to try to help the environmental issues concerned with our gasoline emissions? Or do we think that's what other people need to do, but not us?
So what I conclude after pondering these two quotations from the Dalai Lama, a man whom I deeply respect, is not especially earth-shattering or brilliant, but we can't say it too often.
We are all in this together. It is time for us to understand that and act on it.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Thoughts From the Study Group
"You have to die before you can be resurrected. You have to be totally extinguished. Then you can be fully renewed."
"God is forgiving, but He can't coexist with sin. Even an innocent mistake is still sin."
"Sin has to be paid for."
These are statements I heard last night at my church's weekly study group. (We're slowly going through Max Lucado's 3:16, and while I think Lucado is a fine writer I am far from agreeing with him on matters of faith. Still, I believe I can learn something from this study and leave behind whatever I cannot agree with or learn from.) They were made by my pastor. They all waved red flags at me. At one point I almost asked a question that would have made the discussion extremely interesting, but then I decided that the discussion would be better held in private.
It all goes to the root of my problem with the Christian tradition.
It makes sense that you have to be totally extinguished before you can be renewed. Any crumb left from the original can come back to haunt you if you're renewed prematurely. I was totally renewed one night almost 27 years ago, and I happily died to my old life and accepted birth into the new one. Fine. (Pronounced FEE-nay, this is Italian for "the end.")
From then on, nothing made sense.
"God is forgiving, but He cannot coexist with sin." That's because, in His perfection, He can't stand imperfection. Sounds like matter and anti-matter to me. They can't exist in the same place. Well, I was nothing but misery and anger and, yes, sin that night when I met Him, and He had His chance to let me have it. He let me have it, all right; He let me have my life back, cleaned and fresh and new. Doesn't seem judgmental or vindictive to me.
"Even an innocent mistake is still sin." Whatever happened to the matter of your intention? We all make innocent mistakes. We all make wrong choices even if we think we're making good ones. You make the best choice you can with the understanding available to you, and sometimes it blows up on you. But your intention was right, and God knows that.
"Sin has to be paid for." You get out of the payment by believing that Jesus died in your place. That is a condition. We don't get forgiveness unless we do something. Where is grace? Where is the unconditional love I met one night?
So let's take another look at this. I have started to reread another Marcus Borg book. This one is Jesus: A New Vision. Hear what Borg says on page 103: "To say that God is gracious means that the relationship with God is not dependent upon performance . . . The relationship is prior to that." In other words, God already loves us! Love is God's nature, and God loves us from the beginning. All God actually wants from us is to love Him back, to be in relationship with Him. That way we are open to His leading and He can heal us.
That sounds much more effective than the other way.
"God is forgiving, but He can't coexist with sin. Even an innocent mistake is still sin."
"Sin has to be paid for."
These are statements I heard last night at my church's weekly study group. (We're slowly going through Max Lucado's 3:16, and while I think Lucado is a fine writer I am far from agreeing with him on matters of faith. Still, I believe I can learn something from this study and leave behind whatever I cannot agree with or learn from.) They were made by my pastor. They all waved red flags at me. At one point I almost asked a question that would have made the discussion extremely interesting, but then I decided that the discussion would be better held in private.
It all goes to the root of my problem with the Christian tradition.
It makes sense that you have to be totally extinguished before you can be renewed. Any crumb left from the original can come back to haunt you if you're renewed prematurely. I was totally renewed one night almost 27 years ago, and I happily died to my old life and accepted birth into the new one. Fine. (Pronounced FEE-nay, this is Italian for "the end.")
From then on, nothing made sense.
"God is forgiving, but He cannot coexist with sin." That's because, in His perfection, He can't stand imperfection. Sounds like matter and anti-matter to me. They can't exist in the same place. Well, I was nothing but misery and anger and, yes, sin that night when I met Him, and He had His chance to let me have it. He let me have it, all right; He let me have my life back, cleaned and fresh and new. Doesn't seem judgmental or vindictive to me.
"Even an innocent mistake is still sin." Whatever happened to the matter of your intention? We all make innocent mistakes. We all make wrong choices even if we think we're making good ones. You make the best choice you can with the understanding available to you, and sometimes it blows up on you. But your intention was right, and God knows that.
"Sin has to be paid for." You get out of the payment by believing that Jesus died in your place. That is a condition. We don't get forgiveness unless we do something. Where is grace? Where is the unconditional love I met one night?
So let's take another look at this. I have started to reread another Marcus Borg book. This one is Jesus: A New Vision. Hear what Borg says on page 103: "To say that God is gracious means that the relationship with God is not dependent upon performance . . . The relationship is prior to that." In other words, God already loves us! Love is God's nature, and God loves us from the beginning. All God actually wants from us is to love Him back, to be in relationship with Him. That way we are open to His leading and He can heal us.
That sounds much more effective than the other way.
Monday, December 17, 2007
What Is Salvation Anyway?
In The God We Never Knew, Marcus Borg asks an interesting question about salvation: Is it about the next life or about this life?
He goes into Biblical images of salvation such as bondage and liberation, estrangement and reconciliation, or salvation as enlightenment or forgiveness or experiencing the love of God.
The basic beliefs about salvation that we hear of today are that we get to go to Heaven when we die, if we believe that Jesus died on the cross to give us forgiveness for our sins. That adds a condition; we aren't forgiven for our sins unless we meet a requirement. (So much for grace!) What Borg points out is that we think of salvation as being connected to the idea of an afterlife. Why, after all, should we bother to do good here on earth if there is no reward for it in the afterlife?
If there is really anything to grace, God loves us in spite of our sins and screwups. Knowing God's unconditional love and acceptance is surely salvation, because it is healing and liberating. (I know; I've been there.)
So if you experience this unconditional love, and you are healed and liberated, you will literally be reborn. (I was, anyway.) If resurrection is taken as a dying to the old life and being born into a new one, then we see that in the cross and its aftermath.
And notice that this refers to knowing God. Not knowing about God. Actual experience, an encounter with the Divine, is how you get to know God. Nothing else changes you.
Borg has a lot more to say about salvation. I am branching off at this point.
For a long time, I have believed that salvation was simply knowing that God loves you. And I have been convinced for 27 years that the important thing is to have a relationship with God, not to believe this or that doctrine. I am saved. I have this relationship. I am already in the Kingdom. The afterlife, whatever it is going to be, will only continue what has begun in this life.
He goes into Biblical images of salvation such as bondage and liberation, estrangement and reconciliation, or salvation as enlightenment or forgiveness or experiencing the love of God.
The basic beliefs about salvation that we hear of today are that we get to go to Heaven when we die, if we believe that Jesus died on the cross to give us forgiveness for our sins. That adds a condition; we aren't forgiven for our sins unless we meet a requirement. (So much for grace!) What Borg points out is that we think of salvation as being connected to the idea of an afterlife. Why, after all, should we bother to do good here on earth if there is no reward for it in the afterlife?
If there is really anything to grace, God loves us in spite of our sins and screwups. Knowing God's unconditional love and acceptance is surely salvation, because it is healing and liberating. (I know; I've been there.)
So if you experience this unconditional love, and you are healed and liberated, you will literally be reborn. (I was, anyway.) If resurrection is taken as a dying to the old life and being born into a new one, then we see that in the cross and its aftermath.
And notice that this refers to knowing God. Not knowing about God. Actual experience, an encounter with the Divine, is how you get to know God. Nothing else changes you.
Borg has a lot more to say about salvation. I am branching off at this point.
For a long time, I have believed that salvation was simply knowing that God loves you. And I have been convinced for 27 years that the important thing is to have a relationship with God, not to believe this or that doctrine. I am saved. I have this relationship. I am already in the Kingdom. The afterlife, whatever it is going to be, will only continue what has begun in this life.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Insult, Cultural Goof, or Nonsense?
I have come to this conclusion about the incident of the British teacher in the Sudan: The whole thing could not have been about an insult to Muhammad. No way.
The teacher in question had a class of, I think, seven-year-old kids. There was some project the class was doing with a stuffed bear and they wanted to name the bear. The class voted on three names, and Muhammad was the name they voted for.
The kids, I presume, were Muslims. They certainly didn't know they were offending their own religion. The teacher was a Brit and had been in the country only a few weeks; she wouldn't have known any differently.
But someone complained, and we had this ridiculous international brouhaha. The original charges she was indicted on (if the Sudan has indictment as we know it) would have given her a punishment of lashes (yes, in the 21st century!), prison, and a fine. They wound up reducing the charge, gave her 15 days in the pokey, and announced that she would be deported. Then they pardoned her and let her leave the country.
It smelled to me right then. Smelled fishy. Powerfully fishy.
In the first place, she hadn't done anything. Her class made the decision. In the second place, if the insult was so horrendous, why were the charges reduced so promptly and easily? (I'm not even asking why British embassy officials and one of her major attorneys had trouble getting into the courtroom.) Despite all the arguments, the record of the kids' votes, the lack of ability to prove any intention to insult, she was convicted. And then why the pardon?
The whole thing was a farce.
It was not about the stuffed bear, or its name, or the teacher. It couldn't have been. It was illogical from start to finish.
Maybe they wanted to make trouble for a Westerner just because they could. Maybe they just wanted to kick Great Britain. We'll never know.
I inferred from something I read that the demonstration demanding her execution, while not put on by the government, could not have taken place without government sanction. That made it not just smell, but reek of fishiness. Was the original complaint real? Or did someone put those parents up to it?
It just looks like a trumped-up charge, a play where everyone on the Sudanese side went through the motions for their own reasons, and after they had what they wanted they let the teacher go. I am sorry that she had to get pulled into it; it seems clear to me that she was innocent but was deliberately made an example of. I am also sorry for her students, for they have lost a fine teacher.
I guess one thing it shows is that, if you want to be insulted, you can choose to be, and make an issue of it, no matter what.
The teacher in question had a class of, I think, seven-year-old kids. There was some project the class was doing with a stuffed bear and they wanted to name the bear. The class voted on three names, and Muhammad was the name they voted for.
The kids, I presume, were Muslims. They certainly didn't know they were offending their own religion. The teacher was a Brit and had been in the country only a few weeks; she wouldn't have known any differently.
But someone complained, and we had this ridiculous international brouhaha. The original charges she was indicted on (if the Sudan has indictment as we know it) would have given her a punishment of lashes (yes, in the 21st century!), prison, and a fine. They wound up reducing the charge, gave her 15 days in the pokey, and announced that she would be deported. Then they pardoned her and let her leave the country.
It smelled to me right then. Smelled fishy. Powerfully fishy.
In the first place, she hadn't done anything. Her class made the decision. In the second place, if the insult was so horrendous, why were the charges reduced so promptly and easily? (I'm not even asking why British embassy officials and one of her major attorneys had trouble getting into the courtroom.) Despite all the arguments, the record of the kids' votes, the lack of ability to prove any intention to insult, she was convicted. And then why the pardon?
The whole thing was a farce.
It was not about the stuffed bear, or its name, or the teacher. It couldn't have been. It was illogical from start to finish.
Maybe they wanted to make trouble for a Westerner just because they could. Maybe they just wanted to kick Great Britain. We'll never know.
I inferred from something I read that the demonstration demanding her execution, while not put on by the government, could not have taken place without government sanction. That made it not just smell, but reek of fishiness. Was the original complaint real? Or did someone put those parents up to it?
It just looks like a trumped-up charge, a play where everyone on the Sudanese side went through the motions for their own reasons, and after they had what they wanted they let the teacher go. I am sorry that she had to get pulled into it; it seems clear to me that she was innocent but was deliberately made an example of. I am also sorry for her students, for they have lost a fine teacher.
I guess one thing it shows is that, if you want to be insulted, you can choose to be, and make an issue of it, no matter what.
Basic Spiritual Disciplines?
Recently we had a sermon in church about your work ethic. That didn't mean your work ethic at work. It meant your work ethic in the church. Whether you contribute time and effort to the work of the church. Whether you work at being an asset rather than a liability. Using your gifts for the good of the congregation. You express your Christianity by doing all that stuff.
Fine.
But then we hit a snag. Basic spiritual disciplines for the individual member were described as: attending worship weekly, Bible study daily, and tithing the full 10% of your income.
After the service I asked the pastor, "Where is prayer in that?" I know that he personally believes in prayer, but while he agreed that prayer is important, he didn't try to explain why he hadn't included it in his list of basic spiritual disciplines. Maybe the congregation has given him reason to think they don't care about it. I don't know.
Let me put it this way. I have begun to reread The God We Never Knew by Marcus Borg, and so far he has written about two basic ways we can look at God. Either God is a King (remote male authority figure who dominates us so that we have to obey) or God is a Spirit (right-here compassionate figure who desires to have a loving relationship with each of us). Borg and I both prefer the idea of God as Spirit, remembering of course that there is no actual word or concept that can begin to describe God with any accuracy.
Borg concludes one chapter with this summary: God is real, the Christian life is about entering into a relationship with God as we see God in Jesus, and this relationship can and will change your life. (This is page 51 in my copy.)
What I get out of it is this. The first statement is right on. The relationship is with God as shown by Jesus; it is not a relationship with Jesus himself. And I can testify about how it changes lives. So can many others.
How do we get this relationship? Again, here is Borg: "Prayer is attending to our relationship with God." (This is page 123.)
Worship, tithing, and Bible study are all good. I either do them now or have done them in the past. When I get my new life straightened out I may be doing all of them at once. Who knows? But they don't provide what prayer provides. The way to establish and nurture an intimate relationship with God is prayer. And to me anyway, that is the essential thing. There is no life worth living without such a relationship.
And so we need to pray.
That's all there is to it.
Fine.
But then we hit a snag. Basic spiritual disciplines for the individual member were described as: attending worship weekly, Bible study daily, and tithing the full 10% of your income.
After the service I asked the pastor, "Where is prayer in that?" I know that he personally believes in prayer, but while he agreed that prayer is important, he didn't try to explain why he hadn't included it in his list of basic spiritual disciplines. Maybe the congregation has given him reason to think they don't care about it. I don't know.
Let me put it this way. I have begun to reread The God We Never Knew by Marcus Borg, and so far he has written about two basic ways we can look at God. Either God is a King (remote male authority figure who dominates us so that we have to obey) or God is a Spirit (right-here compassionate figure who desires to have a loving relationship with each of us). Borg and I both prefer the idea of God as Spirit, remembering of course that there is no actual word or concept that can begin to describe God with any accuracy.
Borg concludes one chapter with this summary: God is real, the Christian life is about entering into a relationship with God as we see God in Jesus, and this relationship can and will change your life. (This is page 51 in my copy.)
What I get out of it is this. The first statement is right on. The relationship is with God as shown by Jesus; it is not a relationship with Jesus himself. And I can testify about how it changes lives. So can many others.
How do we get this relationship? Again, here is Borg: "Prayer is attending to our relationship with God." (This is page 123.)
There are many types of prayer, and many books about prayer, enough to fill a library. In all of them we can open to a relationship with God. But nothing does it like contemplative or silent prayer. Centering prayer. Prayer of examen. Lectio divina done in combination with centering prayer. That last one is also an in-depth way to do some Bible study as well. Those are the applications of contemplative prayer that I am familiar with. I'm sure there are many others as well.
Worship, tithing, and Bible study are all good. I either do them now or have done them in the past. When I get my new life straightened out I may be doing all of them at once. Who knows? But they don't provide what prayer provides. The way to establish and nurture an intimate relationship with God is prayer. And to me anyway, that is the essential thing. There is no life worth living without such a relationship.
And so we need to pray.
That's all there is to it.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Trouble With Mixing Church and State
I was just reading on my homepage a story about a young woman in Saudia Arabia who got gang raped - and has been given a horrendous punishment herself. At least the rapists are in prison; they are being punished for what they did. But it seems this young woman was out with the wrong person; she was out with a friend, and she is supposed to go out with men only if they are relatives. At last count she has been sentenced to 200 lashes, according to what I read. Not for being raped. For being out with the wrong person.
I can't imagine that this rape victim had done anything to deserve 200 lashes. Surely being gang raped by seven men is enough "punishment" for being at that place at that time, and had she been there with a relative she would probably still have been raped. (Her companion, a friend, was also assaulted.)
I realize that there are cultural differences as well as religious differences operating here. And I am encouraged by the worldwide outcry over this woman's sentence; at least some of us have decided to join the twenty-first century even if Saudi Arabia is still back in the year 500.
This is what bothers me about all the various movements to establish government by religion. We see it in the Muslim extremists, who are exporting their violence and their version of religion to many other countries besides their own. We also see it in some Christian groups here who, if they had the chance, would clamp down on all of us just as viciously as the Muslim extremists would.
Most of these factions are more concerned about rules rather than justice, about control rather than compassion, and most of them are going to exert the stiffest controls over the behavior and lives of women. I haven't heard of any faction yet that sounds like it would have one strict standard for everyone; most of them want to move backward, and re-establish male power at the expense of women's freedoms and rights, returning to double standards that it has taken decades to eliminate.
As a woman, therefore, I can't help but be suspicious of these movements. Women have struggled long and hard for things that men take for granted - things like being able to vote, for goodness' sake, to graduate from universities, to have careers in the professions. And while the debate is far from over, women currently have at least some say over matters when they become pregnant.
How can any woman want to go back to being the property of a man? To being unable to vote or hold any kind of public office? To being unable to work in certain fields, or perhaps to be forbidden to work at all? To being told what to wear, where to go, and who to go there with? I would find it intolerable. I think a lot of the rest of us would too.
We all have our own ideas of what God wants. Some of us think God would like the kind of society I just described. Some of those people are, in fact, women, and if they really think that would be wonderful, more power to them.
But I look - as I often do - at the example of Jesus. I may not agree with what the church teaches about him, but I certainly recognize that he gave us a believable picture of God. The God I see in Jesus is unconditionally loving, accepting of all who came to him, revealing sin perhaps but not judging it. Jesus was free. Totally free. And he did not impose things on others, which makes me think he expected all of us to be as free as he was. And oh yes, he expected both men and women to be responsible for themselves, including their spiritual states.
I cannot think for one minute that God, who loves each of us, would support the kind of state that gives young women 200 lashes just for being out with someone who isn't a relative. I hope and pray that somehow the international reaction can help to ease the situation there. That is wrong. Whatever it is, it is not justice.
I can't imagine that this rape victim had done anything to deserve 200 lashes. Surely being gang raped by seven men is enough "punishment" for being at that place at that time, and had she been there with a relative she would probably still have been raped. (Her companion, a friend, was also assaulted.)
I realize that there are cultural differences as well as religious differences operating here. And I am encouraged by the worldwide outcry over this woman's sentence; at least some of us have decided to join the twenty-first century even if Saudi Arabia is still back in the year 500.
This is what bothers me about all the various movements to establish government by religion. We see it in the Muslim extremists, who are exporting their violence and their version of religion to many other countries besides their own. We also see it in some Christian groups here who, if they had the chance, would clamp down on all of us just as viciously as the Muslim extremists would.
Most of these factions are more concerned about rules rather than justice, about control rather than compassion, and most of them are going to exert the stiffest controls over the behavior and lives of women. I haven't heard of any faction yet that sounds like it would have one strict standard for everyone; most of them want to move backward, and re-establish male power at the expense of women's freedoms and rights, returning to double standards that it has taken decades to eliminate.
As a woman, therefore, I can't help but be suspicious of these movements. Women have struggled long and hard for things that men take for granted - things like being able to vote, for goodness' sake, to graduate from universities, to have careers in the professions. And while the debate is far from over, women currently have at least some say over matters when they become pregnant.
How can any woman want to go back to being the property of a man? To being unable to vote or hold any kind of public office? To being unable to work in certain fields, or perhaps to be forbidden to work at all? To being told what to wear, where to go, and who to go there with? I would find it intolerable. I think a lot of the rest of us would too.
We all have our own ideas of what God wants. Some of us think God would like the kind of society I just described. Some of those people are, in fact, women, and if they really think that would be wonderful, more power to them.
But I look - as I often do - at the example of Jesus. I may not agree with what the church teaches about him, but I certainly recognize that he gave us a believable picture of God. The God I see in Jesus is unconditionally loving, accepting of all who came to him, revealing sin perhaps but not judging it. Jesus was free. Totally free. And he did not impose things on others, which makes me think he expected all of us to be as free as he was. And oh yes, he expected both men and women to be responsible for themselves, including their spiritual states.
I cannot think for one minute that God, who loves each of us, would support the kind of state that gives young women 200 lashes just for being out with someone who isn't a relative. I hope and pray that somehow the international reaction can help to ease the situation there. That is wrong. Whatever it is, it is not justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)