Talking with a churchless Christian

Last Tuesday I spent two pleasant hours talking with a Christian philosophy professor, Thomas Talbott. Tom teaches at Salem’s Willamette University. We were introduced by philosopher/artist/writer Patricia Herron, a friend who was instrumental in getting me thinking about this here Church of the Churchless back in August 2004.

Pat, Tom, Don (a friend of Toms) and I got into lots of deep stuff during our conversation at the south Salem Beanery. Though my neurons were flying on the caffeinated wings of a grande vanilla latte, I really didn’t need any artificial stimulation to stay focused on the fascinating topics that we covered. Here’s a sampling:

God is love—all love. Tom has written a book called “The Inescapable Love of God” whose title just about says it all. He believes in the doctrine of universalism, a.k.a. universal reconciliation. In the first chapter of his book Tom says, “Against the many religious doctrines that appeal to and cultivate our fear, I shall urge upon my reader this simple proposition: Contrary to what we might fear, the Creator and Father of our souls—the Lord of hosts and King of kings—is good.”

Hallelujah! The good news Tom brings is that everyone ultimately will be saved, Christian and non-Christian alike. When I asked him to confirm that this included my pagan soul, I liked his answer: “Sure. In fact, you might be closer to salvation than I am.” Now we’re talking. I could get behind a Christianity that lets you be saved without becoming a Christian.

Divinity starts on the high end of humanity. I told Tom that I liked the notion that God is all love, because I’ve always believed that a God who isn’t as good as a decent human being isn’t worth having faith in. I mean, it’d be taking a cosmic step backwards to worship a judgmental, punishing God who arbitrarily plays favorites, since lots of people here on earth manifest superior qualities.

I’d suspected that this view of mine wasn’t original (what view is?), and got that suspicion confirmed when I read the first 25 pages of “The Inescapable Love of God” (a free PDF sample). For Tom says the same thing on p. 8:

“I knew instinctively that I could never worship a God who is less merciful, less kind, less loving than my own parents, but that is just what I seemed to encounter in the mainstream of Western theology: a God who, though gracious (after a fashion) to some (the elect), refuses to will the good for others (the non-elect). And I could not imagine my parents refusing to will the good for anyone.”

Of course, it isn’t just Western religions that have an exclusionary policy concerning who gets to ride on the God train back to heaven. The Eastern mystical group that I’ve been associated with, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, believes that unless you’re initiated by a “perfect living master,” you’re doomed. Nonetheless, my poor doomed wife, whom I like to call my lovely infidel, isn’t losing any sleep over this. According to Tom, her peaceful slumber is absolutely warranted.

Why is God so well hidden? I told Tom that I liked his omnibenevolent conception of God. However, if God cares about us so much, why is God so hidden from both our physical and spiritual eyes? A good parent doesn’t stay in the bedroom all of the time with the door closed, leaving his or her children to fend for themselves. How can we have a close relationship with God when there’s nobody evident to relate to?

Tom had a short answer: “God doesn’t care if we know that he exists. He wants us to learn how to love each other, and all else that has been brought into existence by God. To love the Son is to love the Father. We all are Sons of the Father, not just Jesus.” Not bad. I don’t know if this really is true, but the basic notion intuitively appeals to me. If earthly existence is a sort of school, then God, the headmaster, isn’t concerned with how much we know about him, but rather with how well we learn the big lesson of life—love.

However, I replied that if God is love, then getting a great big infusion of God-realization into my soul seemingly would both (1) enable me to know the nature of God, and (2) teach me what love is all about. On the other hand (my Libra-ness keeps coming out) I also observed that any creative force which can form an entire universe in the big bang and keep it banging away for fourteen billion years, with many more billions yet to come, probably is a tad too powerful for my psyche to touch directly. Some insulation between us and God is necessary, which could explain God’s invisibility.

You’re a sinner! I got a flavor of good old traditional fire-and-brimstone Christianity after I shared an example of how I had strayed from one of the commandments of my own spiritual group. Without missing a beat Tom thundered out, “You’re a sinner!” With a smile, of course. I’m tempted to tell you what I said, but for literary reasons I want to let the denouement of this story wait a while, building up some dramatic tension before my confession is revealed (don’t get too excited; my sin is pretty tame by modern sinning standards).

Tom spoke about a similar experience from his conservative Christian high school days. He says in his book that “at my high school, a good Christian was identified as someone who does not smoke, drink, dance (roller skating was ‘iffy’), play cards, or attend Hollywood movies.” However, after Tom became more heretical and independent he went to a John Wayne movie with a friend from another high school.

They enjoyed the movie. After it ended they were walking down the sidewalk when some of Tom’s Christian classmates approached from the other direction. “What are you up to?” the classmates said. Tom was tongue-tied, but his friend—unaware that going to a movie was a Christian no-no—blurted out, “Oh, we went to see a John Wayne movie.” Tom said that as soon as those words came out of his friend’s mouth he felt like everything inside of him shriveled up into a wad of shame.

Such is the power of a religious group. One moment you can be on your own doing something innocent that feels perfectly fine; the next moment group pressure, either inwardly or outwardly imposed, can leave you feeling like a horrible sinner. One action; two ways of looking at it.

I threw out for discussion my Desert Island Theory of Morality. The theory isn’t fully formed yet, since I made up most of it on the spot there at the coffee house. But it’s something I have thought about now and then—such as when I fantasize Angelina Jolie appearing on my doorstep, dressed in as little as my fantasy will allow.

I say “will allow,” because fantasies are situated in some sort of context. For example, Angelina and I are somewhere; I’m somebody—married or not married, much as I am now or wildly different. Now, my Desert Island Theory of Morality comes into play in this fashion: I imagine that I’m on a deserted island similar to that of the “Lost” TV series. I’m disconnected from every aspect of my current worldly life. And there’s no chance that I’ll ever be reconnected to that life again.

I’m starting fresh. No religious group to belong to. No family to be a part of. No job to work at. No friends to associate with. I’ve already got the necessities of life on the island, such as food, water, and shelter, but anything else above and beyond that will have to wash up on its shores.

Such as one day, praise God!, Angelina Jolie. And the same merciful power that brought her to me has instilled in her a passionate desire for a 56 year-old graying man. Double praise God!! The moral question becomes: what to do? What is right when you’re absolutely on your own (well, aside from Angelina), free to make your own moral decisions without having to worry about what other people think or how they will react to what you decide to do?

This is an interesting question. It’s too involved to explore in any detail here. I’ll simply observe that much of morality involves a concern with how our actions affect other people. Such is absolutely appropriate. I believe in marital fidelity. Almost always infidelity, when it’s discovered, causes pain to the offended spouse. One person’s pleasure shouldn’t be bought with another person’s pain.

But Tom’s anecdote about going to a movie points to the craziness of feeling guilty for doing something that should be guilt free. Often the only reason we feel guilty is because we’ve been illogically taught to feel that way. Religious and other social institutions have a vested interest in keeping firm control of their members. For if people feel free to follow their own well-calibrated moral compass, they also may feel free to leave the confines of the group that has established boundaries thou shalt not cross.

I’ve been a vegetarian for about thirty-six years. It would take a lot to get me to eat an animal. If that desert island had fruits and vegetables to keep me alive, a refrigerated container full of filet mignon and a French chef could wash up on the beach and I wouldn’t have the slightest interest in it. Really. I believe that the more our morality can be inwardly grounded rather than outwardly proscribed, as my vegetarianism is, the better.

Anyway, it was a delight to talk with Tom, Don, and Patricia. Near the end of our conversation, when I asked Tom if, given all his heretical views, he still considered himself to be a Christian, I liked how there was a slight stammer as he said, “Um, ah, yes, I am.” I could be wrong, but he seemed to be mentally defining Christianity in his mind (as a college professor should), deciding whether what he believes could reasonably be called Christian.

Tom is a churchless Christian, the best kind.

Comments

[Who Am I ?]

Brian wrote: "Tom says, “Against the many religious doctrines that appeal to and cultivate our fear, I shall urge upon my reader this simple proposition: Contrary to what we might fear, the Creator and Father of our souls—the Lord of hosts and King of kings—is good.”"

I would certainly agree that what is needed for humanity, lies away from the direction of fear, and the religions which use fear to goad people into belief. But I do not agree with Mr Talbott's opinion and assertion that there is such a thing as "the Creator and Father of our souls — the Lord of hosts and King of kings." This reeks of quasi-religiosity, duality, and seems to be an attempt to promote the Judeao-Christiona and Islamic religious mind-set.

Brian wrote: "The good news Tom brings is that everyone ultimately will be saved,"

On the surface, that sounds nice and liberal. But in another sense, the whole notion of "saved" or "not saved" is kind of a misleading issue. Real salvation, necessarily must be a matter of one's own state of consciousness, real knowledge, and understanding of the nature of 'existence'. Everyone will be "saved", but only when they have awakened to Reality. That is the only true salvation and liberation from suffering.

Tom writes: "I knew instinctively that I could never worship a God who is...."

Why and who says there needs to be such a thing as "worship" ? Worship is founded in the mind of duality. The Truth does not need to be 'worshipped', just surrendered to.

Brian wrote: "The Eastern mystical group that I’ve been associated with, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, believes that unless you’re initiated by a “perfect living master,” you’re doomed."

OK...now I see where you are apparently going with this 'salvation' thing.

Brian wrote: "Why is God so well hidden?"

Well I would like to suggest that "God" is not hidden at all. "God" is not other than your very own Consciousness/Awareness. Everthing in the universe, all form, phenomena, and everything perceived, is a manifestation of the ineffable God, the supreme Self.

Brian wrote: "God, ... isn’t concerned with how much we know about him, but rather with how well we learn the big lesson of life - love.

Yes, and I would add that what "love" really is in essence, is surrender. One may then say: Surrender to what ? ... Surrender to that which IS, surrender to the highest Truth, surrender of the mind into Being itself.

Brian wrote: "...if God is love, then getting a great big infusion of God-realization into my soul seemingly would both (1) enable me to know the nature of God, and (2) teach me what love is all about. .... I also observed that any creative force which can form an entire universe in the big bang and keep it banging away for fourteen billion years, ... probably is a tad too powerful for my psyche to touch directly. Some insulation between us and God is necessary, which could explain God’s invisibility."

On the surface Brian, you seem to regard this to be a big mystery, and that "God" is somehow too big and too powerful for us to see or know directly. First, I would say that these statements are simply presumptions on your part. You state that achieving God-realization, should bring understanding of the nature of God, and "what love is all about". To that I would agree, provided that true and real God-realization is achieved, and not just simply conceptual thought, belief, or faith. Second, you assume that some immensley powerful "God", created the universe via the "Big Bang" (a mere theory), and also sustains the universe as well. This notion is based on a presumption that the universe is real, and that its existence is objective. I would offer that all such notions are entirely based on the observer's limited sense perception and intellect, which is all quite conditioned and relative. If what you say is true, that God is beyond the ability of your "psyche" to comprehend, then you are esentially saying that God is unknowable. You view is also based on a fundamental presumption that you and God are separate and different.

On the other hand, if "God" is not separate, and not some inaccessably supreme and all-too-powerful creator , and the real God is simply the beginningless and indestructible primordial pure Awareness, which is the 'knower', the 'knowing', as well as 'the known', and which effortlessly knows itself, and which is your very own true nature, then God is not some overwhelming mystery, nor is God beyond our knowing.

I would offer that it is "God" itself who is the one who knows itself, and all that is needed is to remove the veil of ignorance which is the only thing which "hides" the true knowledge which is God knowing God.

Brian wrote: "Religious and other social institutions have a vested interest in keeping firm control of their members. For if people feel free to follow their own well-calibrated moral compass, they also may feel free to leave the confines of the group that has established boundaries thou shalt not cross."

Quite true. But in the beginning, all throughout the middle, and at the end, it is always up to an individual as to whether they are going to buy into, submit to, seek approval of, or otherwise be controlled by, any such religious or social institution. In truth, everyone always has freedom of mind, but whether they claim it, use it, and not let others sway they away from it, is always up to them. The only thing which may naturally limit or bind individuals, is their sanskaras (impressions) and vasanas (tendencies), but even so, with desire and effort, these too can be overcome. However, far too many people sell themselves somewhat short on their own empowerment, their own innate freedom, and their own inner "salvation". Instead, they consciously or unconsciously allow themselves to be influenced by the ideas, opinions, illusions, myths, and social pressures of others. In so doing, they lose the innate treasure of the Truth, which lies within their own Being and Consciousness.

[GM]

What do I call myself?

I chuckled at Tom's reaction to the question of whether or not he was a Christian.

Lately, when I am talking spiritual matters with someone (sometimes while talking political matters, too) I comment that I can't, with good conscience, call myself a Christian any more. I invariably get a non-committal look. But, I hadn't been *asked* if I was a Christian. Until 2 weeks ago, that is.

A Navajo man came into my office asking for a couple of dollars. I didn't have any, but we ended up talking for quite awhile and sharing philosophical/spiritual views of the world. We both agreed that for some reason, we were supposed to meet on that particular day, in this particular place. Towards the end of our conversation, he asked me if I was a Christian. I stammered a bit and then answered, "Well, I was definitely raised in a Christian home, and it definitely played a part in making me who I am today."

For the rest of the day, I pondered my answer. I realized that, for the time being, my answer should be, "no". That was a little unsettling, since, as I had said, being raised a "Christian" is deeply rooted in who I am.

That got me to thinking about how the "being raised in a Christian home" affected me. I thought about my mother and father, who are truly the embodiment of "Christ's unconditional love". My mother's patience knows no bounds. I have yet to see her loose her temper. My father's giving-ness often seems to be too much. He has, literally, given the shirt off of his back to someone who he felt needed it more than he. I thought about what I learned from both of them. They have taught me to accept others for who they are; they have taught me to believe in spiritual things; they have taught me to ask questions.

All of this thinking hasn't brought any aswer to "What do I call myself". I am not a "Christian"; it's a PART of who I am, but it is not the final "me". Maybe, when someone asks me, "are you a Christian" I'll start answering, "No. I'm a [parents' last name]" :)

[GM]

Then again, maybe I'll start saying I'm a "church-free Christian".
:)

[Who Am I ?]

Why is that people feel such a compulsion to define or identify themselves in terms of a particular religious orientation ?

GM wrote: "I can't, with good conscience, call myself a Christian any more." -- (and) -- "...maybe I'll start saying I'm a "church-free Christian."

Why should it be necessary to call yourself anything?

Consider this: All these categories, definitions, and religious identifications are simply limited thoughts, ideas, concepts, and forms, which are merely being super-imposed upon one's true being and person. They are used variously to gain or project a sense of identity, belong to a group, or to present a basis for moral superiority, self-righteousness, or assured salvation. All such attempts to identify, define, or position one's self in relation to others or the world, are totally unnecessary and represent limitations and distortions of one's real and true nature.

Be Free! ... Free yourself from the need to define yourself spiritually, belong to a religion, or subscribe to any belief system. Everyone is perfect and complete in their own true nature, and do not need to have any outer categorical identity or self-definition. Simply Be Yourself. It is unnecessary to define oneself as either "a christian", "a moslem", "a hindu", "a churchless", or anything else for that matter.

[GM]

Exactly.

So.

My answer to "Who/What are you?":

I am.

:)