Today, in this second decade of the 21st century, many people have no interest, positively or negatively, in these old Christian symbols. If there is some relevant meaning in these old symbols, they don’t care. They even fear that finding some relevant meaning in this confused heritage will justify carrying on with the oppressive forms of Christianity that they have known and now wish to thoroughly avoid. Some of these folk have given up on religion of any sort. Why have a religious practice at all? What good is it? Who needs It? Some of these folk have given up on Christianity, but have moved on to a Buddhist practice or an Islamic practice or a Pagan practice or some other religious practice that they much prefer. Or perhaps some fresh, new therapeutic community or scientific discipline seems to help them well enough to not need a religion.

This new situation for Christian witnessing means at least these three things:

(1) Our presentation of Christianity has to be thoroughgoing in its separation from the old oppressive forms that people rightly dismiss and perhaps hate and fear.

(2) And we need to admit that our renewed Christianity is a finite practice alongside other finite practices of religion, none of which have dropped down from Eternity, but all of which have been created by limited human beings.

(3) At the same time, we need a contemporary vision of Eternity as a profound human experience that all good religions came into being, and stills come into being, to assist us to access. This experience of profound humanness needs to be at the heart of our interreligious dialogues and acts of interreligious cooperation. This experience of profound humanness also needs to be the foundation in Truth that guides us in discerning good religion from bad. All this means walking a sort of razor’s edge between falling back into oppressive dogma on the one hand and on the other hand falling forward into a thoroughgoing relativism that holds that any religious perspective or practice as just as good as any other, leaving us with no serious sense of religious validity.

In this Realistic Living Pointers I want to share some helpful insight that pertain to this third quality of a relevant Christian witness. I will start with this poem:

The temporal has a past and a future,
but no present.
The present is only a passing away,
a goodbye to an impermanence.
The present is only a coming to be,
a hello to what is coming into being
and will hence be going away.

In the present of temporality
there is no resting place,
no “IS,” no “Here I am.”
It is all coming and going.
It is all hello and goodbye.

And there is no space at all
between hello and goodbye.
We can image a space like today,
or this hour, or this year,
but these are merely imaginings of our mind,
not experiences of our body, gut, and awareness.
In our real, every-moment experience
of the temporal realm,
it is never Now!

Inescapable Eternality

Eternality is to be found in that infinitesimal nothingness of the present instant. Strange as it seems to our temporal-based minds, we can jump into that present instant and dwell there. Buddhist mediation is exactly that. As we concentrate our consciousness on the incoming and outgoing breath, we are able to notice consciousness itself sitting in its lasting “place” observing all sounds, all feelings, all thoughts, everything. Christian contemplation is also a jump into the lastingness of that Eternal Now. As we recall the past and anticipate the future, notice others and notice our own self, we are also able to notice consciousness itself, sitting in its lasting “place” observing all things. Each of the major world religions manifests awareness of this strange human capacity for being in the Now as some sort of resting place, as a place to BE between the ever-impending future and the ever-gobbling past.

The term “Eternal Now” found a place in the writings of Paul Tillich. Under that title, Tillich published a whole book of sermons on Biblical passages. Let us further explore in our own awareness what this strange paradoxical term “Eternal Now” can mean for us. This Now has no past and no future; it just IS. So stable is this IS that humans have been reluctant to believe that our IS will ever become IS NOT. Humans have projected a reincarnation of this IS, or a resurrection of our body and its IS in a next eon of time, or the continuance of this IS in a Spirit realm of heavenly bliss, or perhaps everlasting despair. That our IS will become NOT with the death of our body is altogether likely; nevertheless, these ancient projections of an “after-death-IS” witness to the Now experience in our current lives of an Eternality to which we are inescapably related.

For the rest of the essay from which the above excerpt it taken, click:

http://www.realisticliving.org/UR3/3TimeEternity.pdf

And for a ten-session course on Christians, Who Are We?
with course overview, ten essays, ten lesson plans for teaching those ten essays,
plus an eleventh essay for further reading, click:

http://www.realisticliving.org/UR1/

The post Do I Want to Be a Christian? first appeared on Realistic Living.

It is fair to say that the symbols of cross and resurrection are as central to an understanding of the Christian revelation as meditation and enlightenment are to Buddhism. Yet both cross and resurrection seem cryptic to many, even weird.

The last three chapters of Mark’s 16-chapter narrative are about the meaning of cross and resurrection as understood by that mid-first-century author and the surprisingly vigorous religious movement of which Mark was a part. I know of no better way to introduce to a contemporary explorer of Christianity the power of these two symbols than with a commentary on the last three chapters of Mark’s Gospel.

Members of a our current scientific culture may be excused somewhat for having a weak understanding of resurrection. Most of us know, if we are honest, that belief in a literal return to life of a three-day-old corpse is superstition. Yet this meaning of resurrection has been paraded as Christian by many. Mark did not see resurrection in this light. Or perhaps we might better say, “Mark did not see resurrection in this darkness,” for a literal return from the dead means nothing deeply religious to Mark or to you or me. If such an event were to happen today, it would be open to hundreds of speculative explanations, none of which would be profoundly or convincingly religious.

Mark’s understanding of the cross is equally opaque in our culture. Some modern authors even accuse Christianity of having a morbid preoccupation with death, suffering, and tragedy. The crucifix, or even a bare cross, is viewed by some as silly and grim—like hanging a guillotine on your wall or around your neck. But for Mark the horror of the cross is seen as priceless food for the soul. How can that be? Surely, we have some thoughtful exploration to do, if we are to grasp the Gospel (the good news) that Mark claims to be announcing.

So here is what I am going to do. I am going to quote in order the Markian text in chapters 14-16. After each section of the narrative, I will do a commentary on the quoted verses and follow that with a few discussion questions. I will assume the best of New Testament scholarship, but will be doing what I call “21st century theologizing for the ordinary reader.”

Mark 14:1-9 A Holy Waste

In two days’ time the festival of the Passover and of unleavened bread was due. Consequently, the chief priests and the scribes were trying to think of some trick by which they could get Jesus into their power and have him executed. “But it must not be during the festival,” they said, “or there will be a riot.”

Jesus himself was now in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper. As he was sitting at table, a woman approached him with an alabaster flask of very costly spikenard perfume. She broke the neck of the flask and poured the perfume on Jesus’ head. Some of those present were highly indignant and muttered, “What is the point of such wicked waste of perfume? It could have been sold for over thirty pounds and the money could have been given to the poor.” And there was a murmur of resentment against her. But Jesus said, “Let her alone, why must you make her feel uncomfortable? She has done a beautiful thing for me. You have the poor with you always, and you can do good to them whenever you like, but you will not always have me. She has done all she could—for she has anointed my body in preparation for burial. I assure you that wherever the Gospel is preached throughout the whole world, this deed of hers will also be recounted, as her memorial to me.”

The story of Martin Luther King Jr. has become a treasure in our recent common memory. We can see how he and his leadership team were supported by the crowds while being opposed by establishment enemies. If there were no crowds, no swath of the population and its social forces hearing his message and supporting it, King’s enemies would have simply shut him up in one way or another. These dynamics are present whenever something new is breaking upon the scene. We can see it in early labor movements, in the apartheid struggle of South Africa, in Gandhi’s freedom fight in India, even in the Beatles impact upon popular music. The prophet is the bringer of new truth to the dynamics of society. There will always be enemies of any new truth. The prophet goes to those who will hear and then confronts his enemies with the crowds who support him or her. The enemies have to listen to the prophet because of the crowds. Otherwise they would simply dismiss him or her. The existence of the listening crowds makes conversation with the prophet’s truth a possibility even for the prophet’s enemies.

Mark has begun the closing chapters of his story by showing us Jesus’ relation to his crowds and to his establishment enemies. Mark is leading up to telling us about Jesus’ arrest, crucifixion, and burial as well as its vital meaning for our lives. Next Mark tells us a story about a woman anointing Jesus’ body in preparation for his burial. Mark views Jesus as the Anointed One, the chosen of God for illuminating the Truth about every event that happens to human persons and societies. This whole-hearted and enthusiastic women is pouring out her expensive perfume on Jesus’ body. This event provides the only anointment ritual that Jesus is going to receive. Jesus is also being prefigured as being himself a precious perfume that is going to be wasted, or so it seems.

The crux of the story is the dialogue between Jesus and those who see this woman’s deed as a wicked waste of expensive perfume: “It could have been sold and the money given to the poor.” Jesus’ reply indicates that honoring a prophet in our midst has an importance even more valuable than giving alms to the poor.

Jesus is surprisingly direct. “You have the poor with you always, and you can do good to them whenever you like, but you will not always have me.” It may now be possible to do away with poverty, but there will always be opportunities for charity and reform rather than the deeper thing that Jesus was doing. Clearly, all values do not revolve around improving the economic conditions of humanity. The value of truth and the value of the truth-teller are even more precious. And these truth values deserve whatever resources we need to honor these rare gifts. In terms of the more typical values of human living, honoring Jesus with a precious ointment may seem like a waste. For Jesus did not change the economic and political conditions, and it is still unclear to many people how he reset our whole sense of truth. Indeed, this entire sadistic and violent pouring out of Jesus’ life can still seem like a waste.

When have you felt that something precious has been wasted?

What might it mean to find other meaning within that seeming waste?

To read the rest of this three-chapter commentary
on cross and resurrection according to Mark click:

http://www.realisticliving.org/PDF/MarkCrossResurrection.pdf

For even more elaboration, see the following book:

The Love of History and the Future of Christianity
toward a manifesto for a next Christianity

For more information on this book, click:

http://www.realisticliving.org/books.htm

The post Cross and Resurrection first appeared on Realistic Living.

In 2009 Harvey Cox published an accessible, well written book entitled The Future of Faith. I agree with his basic insight that the history of Christian religion can be meaningfully viewed in three overarching periods: (1) the early period before Constantine, (2) the period following Constantine until recently, and (3) a current period that is more like the first period than the second.

Cox characterized that first period as an age of faith, the second period as an age of belief, and our present and future period as another age of faith. Cox is clear that faith is an act of our deep existence and that belief is a matter of images, stories, and doctrines of the mind. I agree that it is important to understand this distinction between faith and belief, and also the relationship between them. Cox’s elaborations using this basic model are convincing and useful; nevertheless, I want to suggest that a still deeper perspective is needed. For example, Cox is clear that faith was not entirely dead in period two, and that the confusion of faith with belief existed in period one. Nevertheless, I will show how easy it is for Cox’s readers to idealize period one and demonize period two. Though Cox does not, some Protestants have virtually claimed that faith died shortly after the Bible was written and was not recovered until the time of Luther. This view of Christian history is deeply wrong.

In order to proceed with a more accurate view of Christian history, the terms “faith” and “belief” need to be more clearly defined. Both terms, when carefully defined, have positive applications within all three periods. For example, while belief in rational content is an inadequate substitute for faith as a transrational action of our profound consciousness, a belief can be an expression of faith. In fact, there is no existence of faith without some effort to express that faith in self-understandings and cosmological understandings that amount to a set of beliefs. Both faith and belief are essential functions of being human, along with breathing. This leads to my a basic critique of Cox’s book. I believe he has too greatly idealized the first period of Christian religion, picturing it as too pure in its charismatic faith and too devoid of time-specific, problematical beliefs. Similarly, I believe he has pictured the middle period of Christianity as too devoid of faith and too lost in beliefs that are substituted for faith. To view the Christian past more accurately will enrich our view the future.

Finally, in doing our projection of a viable future for Christianity, we have as much to learn from the second period as we have from the first. And we have as much to abandon in the first period and we do in the second. The best-case scenario I see for the future of Christianity is a radical departure from both of these previous periods and a balanced appropriation of both of their respective gifts. This essay is a brief overview of this perspective. To fully elaborate these intuitions would require at least a whole book.

Definitions of Faith and Belief

A belief is something more than a passing thought. A belief involves commitment on the part of our core consciousness. A belief is more than an abstraction of the mind; it is a construct of thought that is considered to be, rightly or wrongly, an insight into what is real in the environment of living or in the inner life of the living person. When we say we believe something, we mean we are organizing and planning the living of our lives in the light of that piece of rational thought. In that regard, belief is not something to be minimized. We always have beliefs, and we could not live our lives without beliefs. However, a vital Christian theology must not make beliefs a substitute for faith. With regard to our beliefs themselves, the question is: are our beliefs true, partly true, or not true at all? And are our beliefs firmly held, casually assumed, or simple trucked along as mental baggage that means very little to us?

Faith, as clarified by Paul, Luther, and others, is not a set of beliefs. Faith is a risk of our entire lives upon something not seen with eye or mind. For Paul, Luther, and many others, “faith” means trusting in the trustworthiness of the Final Reality that we all confront. Faith is not simply content for the mind. Faith is a motion of the core of consciousness, constituting the life of the whole self. Faith is a deep response of our profound humanness. Faith is a “Yes” answer to such questions as these: Does the Source and Tomb of our existence love us? Is Final Reality doing all things well, or is this Final Upagainstness indifferent (or perhaps hostile) to us? And does Reality forgive us all our “unrealism” and offer us a genuine fresh start in a glorious “authenticity”? Christian faith answers deep within our core existence and with our whole body’s actions a response of “Yes” to such questions about Final Reality’s trustworthiness. Again, this “Yes” answer is not given by the mind only, but by the core of our consciousness.

Also, such faith is not a rational conclusion based on some other truth; such faith is a core relation to Reality that precedes all thinking about faith or about the consequences of living this faith. All our attempts to give a rational description of faith are time-specific and therefore limited descriptions—words that may be useful for a time and place, but inadequate to hold the Eternal relatedness that faith is. Faith is a leap into the full face of Absolute Mystery. Thus faith can only serve as the starting point for all other acts of thought and body. Faith is a risk of our entire being in the fundamental either-or of living. Either Reality is against us. OR Reality is for us.

There cannot be a rational justification for this faith, yet this faith is not anti-intellectual. Human reason a part of the reality being trusted. This does not mean that all the products of reasoning are trustworthy, but that our natural capacity for rational appropriation of what is true is an aspect of the “creation of the Creator,” where “Creator” means that Final Reality we face in every event. The issue with regard to faith and reason is this: does faith use reason faithfully for the purposes of faith, or must faith bow to reason for some sort of justification of faith?

Any confidence for living the life of faith comes in the fruits of having opted to live the faith alternative. Many of those who have opted for faith have claimed that the life of faith has been given to them by Reality. We do choose faith, but faith is not a human invention. Faith is a basic part of the created cosmos that is given along with the cosmos itself. In other words, faith is the only realistic option for living. Every other option is a disaster working its way to some hell of despair. Reflections like these are an expression of the confidence that faith is experienced to be.

Having been given faith and opted for faith, do we still sometimes doubt that Final Reality is doing all thing well on our behalf? Yes, we do. Faith is a journey in which the temptation to opt otherwise remains present. “Lead us not into temptation” is part of the Lord’s prayer. Also, consider the Gospel story about Jesus in his final garden of prayer as he is sweating his awareness that it has become likely that he will be handed over for crucifixion. Does he give up his faith that Final Reality is doing all things well? No. Is he tempted to do so? Yes. He is human at this point, as any of us would be.

The final act of faith in the Jesus story is held in these words “into thy hands I commend my consciousness.” Faith is the sort of confidence that has to be maintained in the face of all temptations to opt otherwise. This makes faith something different from belief, something more basic than any belief, something pre-rational to any reasoning about faith. All beliefs are subject to doubt, but faith is part of an either-or commitment of life, either (1) the trust of Reality or (2) the mistrust of Reality—either (1) “Yes” to realism as the best case scenario for our lives or (2) it is not. For example, when Mark’s Jesus quotes the 22nd Psalm on the cross, “My God, my God, why have your forsaken me,” this must not be interpreted as a lack of faith. The relation “My God” is being maintained in spite of whatever doubts to Jesus’ beliefs are being felt. We do not know what the historical Jesus actually said on the cross. Mark’s picture of Jesus finding meaning the 22nd Psalm is a picture of faith not unfaith. It pictures the sort of raw humanity in which it is still possible for faith to live, in spite of all doubts about beliefs in which that faith has been expressed.

These topics are more fully elaborated in the following extended essay:

http://www.realisticliving.org/UR1/xFRCoxBeliefFaith.pdf

For even more elaboration, see the following book:

The Love of History and the Future of Christianity
toward a manifesto for a next Christianity

For more information on this book, click:

http://www.realisticliving.org/books.htm

The post Belief and Faith first appeared on Realistic Living.

We can have gut responses to our moralities. We like them. We don’t like them. We are nauseated by people to violate them. We enjoy seeing people violate them. These gut-responses are not our moralities, but attitudes we ourselves take toward the familiar moralities that our society, community, parents, or peers have taught us. Our superego, as Freud called it, is nothing else than our internalized social moralities, plus the various attitudes we take toward those moralities.

We also add to this mix rational justifications for the moralities we like and rational excuses for the moralities we dislike. But these justifications have nothing to do with the validity of the moralities. Any validity that moralities can be said to have resides in the social purpose that some society had in creating that morality. Morality rests in some socially felt need for behavioral order that was arbitrarily decided by some society. So if morality is to be realistically approved or changed, the issue is what social ordering is needed by whatever group is going to find that morality useful for its purposes.

If a particular social group is dedicated to living among one another in a realistic fashion, this dedication to realism serves as a sort of guide in the choosing of the moralities that this group selects for itself. As an example, let’s take the ten commandments, as listed in Exodus 20. I am going to word these “moralities” in contemporary speech:

1. Don’t treasure any value more than the value of Realism.
2. Don’t confuse any symbol of Reality for Reality itself.
3. Don’t superficially disregard the reputation of Reality, your primal devotion.
4. Spend at least one day in seven preparing for the realism of the other six days.
5. Honor the wisdom of your particular ancestry.
6. Don’t kill one another.
7. Don’t fuck another’s spouse.
8. Don’t steal another’s stuff.
9. Don’t get worked up for something someone else has.

These moral directives did not drop down from a heavenly realm into the minds or writing surfaces of some person or group of persons. These directives were made up by the leaders and members of a group of people who had left slavery in a hierarchical civilization and were now figuring out how to be realistic in their devotion to the Reality revealed to them in their awesome experience that a human situation can be remarkably changed by bold decisions to do so. Reality loves us, they concluded, with a freedom to be free. So let’s hang on to that, they said, and not return to those old Egyptian slave moralities. And, Moses might be said to have pushed, “ Here are some Reality recommended steps toward realistic moralities.”

The first persons who faced these new moral directives were sorely tempted to return to the moralities with which they were more familiar. Why? Because the moralities of Egypt were embedded in their superegos. To rip up an old superego and start forming an alternative superego is almost as challenging as fleeing the Pharaoh’s chariots. In the biblical narrative, it took 40 years to get those superegos re-habituated.

This fresh telling of the Exodus experience illustrates for us what all morality is like. There is no excuse for continuing with whatever morality we have. If we want to live a realistic life, we have to begin in the moral “wilderness” with the understanding that morality has no justification other than what appears to be the most realistic social patterns for our particular group of people at this particular place and time in the history of the planet.

Morality and Law

Social law is an elaboration of morality—an elaboration with enforcements and penalties. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled as settled law the legality of marriage between same-sex couples. We have now experienced a county clerk who refused to enforce this law, citing her own morality as a reason not to do so. But for a law to be law, it must be enforced. So this clerk had three options: enforce the law in spite of her discomfort, resign her county-clerk job, or go to jail. She chose jail as a protest against this law. And she is being supported by people with like moralities. Nevertheless, the law has to be enforced; the law has no sympathy for this clerk’s morality, and there are no exceptions for her disobedience to the law. Her jail protest can be part of a movement to change the law in the minds of the nation and its courts, but, meanwhile, she personally has only the above three types of action.

It is not true, as some are saying, that her religion/morality is being persecuted. Under the U.S. constitution, she can practice any religion she wants, and she is doing so by going to jail as her “religious/moral” choice. Her religious liberty is being respected. To claim that the law has to make an adaptation to her morality is not true. For example, what if her morality included killing off Jews or blacks or Muslims, would the U.S. constitution support making an exception for that morality?

Ex-governor Mike Huckabee, now running for President of the United States, is arguing that this law is not a law because the state and county have not approved it—that this law is only the ruling of “five unelected judges.” But these carefully appointed Supreme Court Justices are the final appeal on what is to be counted as law in the United States. Huckabee’s view means that he could not take the oath of office of the presidency to enforce the law. Therefore, we should point out to voters that he is not able to take on that job, to run for it, or even to be an advisor for legal matters in this nation. A law must be obeyed until the law is changed. And the chance that this law will ever be changed is basically nil.

What can be changed is our mindset on what counts as religious protection, on how religious practices are protected by government and how governmental decisions are protected against religious tyrannies. Here are some possible guidelines: If a citizen is going to work for a public agency, he or she has to enforce the existing law, whatever be their religion or morality. If a citizen is going to sell products to the general public, they have to sell products to every member of that public, whatever be their religion or morality. Otherwise, we are allowing any individual or any religious group to tyrannize the majority.

If a law does not seem just from someone’s perspective, it can be criticized without penalty and perhaps changed in the established democratic manner, like any other law. Meanwhile the law must be obeyed or the consequences for disobedience taken. That is what it means to truly believe in a nation of laws rather than a nation of gut impulses.

These topics are more fully elaborated in these two books.

The Road from Empire to Eco-Democracy, and
Enigma of Consciousness: A Philosophy of Profound Humanness and Religion

For more information on these books and how to order them, click:

http://www.realisticliving.org/books.htm

The post So What is Morality? first appeared on Realistic Living.

The downside of this opportunity is what I call “religion hopping”—jumping from the most shallow portions of one of these grand religious traditions to the next, to the next, to the next, but never following any religious practice to the depths of that profound humanness that valid religions come into being to express.

Here is a metaphorical picture that I will use to distinguish shallow from deep in our interreligious dialogue.  Imagine a planet in which there are about six cultural regions each of which digs a hole down to the hot core of that planet.  Let that hot core represent profound humanness.  And let the hole-digging represent the practices that each religion uses to experience that profound humanness.  On the surface of the planet, each religion does reflections, theoretics, theologizings and the like that support that particular community and its hole digging.  Also on the surface for each religion are moralities, styles, mode of association that support that particular hole digging.  And finally there are institutions and organizations with their economics and politics that are also needed to support sustained hole digging across the centuries.  Got the picture?  Each religion is digging holes into the same profound humanness, but the holes and the support structures can  be very different, and emphasize different aspects of this overall digging.

So what is this hole digging that promises assistance in reaching the hot core of profound humanness?  It is religious practice.  For example, one of those holes is called meditation practice.  On the surface of that hole digging is  theoretics, styles, and organizations of a religion called “Buddhism” perhaps.   In any case, much Buddhism is a set of teachings for the sake of supporting effective meditation practice.  I love the story about the student who ask his meditation teacher if doing meditation causes enlightenment.   “No,” said the teacher, enlightenment is an accident, but meditation  makes one more accident prone.”  Meditation practice is just one of many useful religious practices that makes one more accident prone to realize that hot core of Reality called by many names, including “enlightenment.”

In another cultural area, another hole is being dug to the hot core of Reality.  Let’s call this hole-digging the religious practice of “dialogue.”  Everyone is in ongoing dialogue with other people: parents, teachers, authors, scriptures, mentors, gurus, art pieces, artists, dancers, singers,  novelists, fictitious characters, and more. These dialogues go on constantly in our inner beings.  The religious practice of dialogue consists of giving intentionality to that natural dialogue, thereby assisting one in digging a hole down to the hot core of Reality.   Metaphorically speaking, we seat our dialogue partners in a set of concentric circles.  In the inner circle we seat those who nurture us in our descent into the hot depths of Reality.  We intentionally listen and talk back to them.  We view their art, sway to their songs, dance to their music, etc. This hole-digging can also make us accident prone to the accident of authenticity, salvation, sanctification, or whatever name points us to that hot center of profound humanness.  Whatever we name it, and however we describe it, that hot core of profound humanness is the same humanity being opened by the Buddhist meditators.

The point of this spin is simply to point out that the thinking, beliefs, styles, moralities, and the organization of a religion are only its surface features, useful for illuminating and sustaining its practices.  It is the practices of a religion that are digging a hole to the profound humanness that every valid religious practice can assist us to discover.  So being deep in our interreligious dialogue means doing dialogue and cooperation with other religions near the profound humanness heat, not at the surface level of beliefs or moralities, thoughts, actions, organizations, etc.  It is our awareness, our being, and our doing of our profound humanness that reveals to us the valid gifts of a religion.   A religion’s thought, action, and practices are good to the extent that they are expressions of that profound humanness that can happen to each of us.

There are many other religious practices than the two described above.   See chapter 19 of The Enigma of Consciousness: A Philosophy of Profound Humanness and Religion for a full development of the topic of religious practices. For more information on this book and how to order it, click here for full-color flyer:

http://www.realisticliving.org/PDF/Consciousness/EnigmaFlyer.pdf

The post Interreligious Dialogue, Shallow and Deep first appeared on Realistic Living.

Religion is a temporal, humanly-created, down-to-Earth practice that points beyond itself in expression of an ultimate devotion to that which is Ultimate.

This definition requires understanding what we mean by “Ultimate,” but first a few examples of practices that are an expression of an ultimate devotion to that which is not ultimate. Nationalism is an example of an ultimate devotion to a nation, a reality that is not ultimate. Similarly, humanism is an example of an ultimate devotion to the human, a reality that is not ultimate. Communism is an example of an ultimate devotion to a theory of economic history—again an ultimate devotion to something not ultimate. These three widespread devotions might be called quasi-religions, for what they do takes the place of religion, if religion is defined as an ultimate devotion to that which is Ultimate.

I will claim that Christianity, at its best, is a religion, but many practices parading as Christianity are not religions. For example, when so-called “Christians” give ultimate loyalty to a specific theology, or a specific organization, or to a specific book, like the Bible or parts of the Bible, that is giving ultimate devotion to that which is not ultimate. The best of Buddhism, on the other hand, is a religion, because its understanding of enlightenment and its devotion to being enlightened and acting on the basis of that enlightenment amount to an ultimate devotion to that which is Ultimate.

The best of Christian practice has parallels with humanism, for the profound humanness that is the Holy Spirit of Christian talk is an incarnation of the Ultimate in down-to-Earth human flesh. The true human in Christian understanding is both (1) a good creation of the Ultimate Source and (2) an embodiment of a “family” connectedness to that Ultimate Almightyness. This amounts to an ultimate loyalty to that which is Ultimate and to being a human being in that overarching context.

The best of Christian practice has parallels with communism, for Christian loyalty to the Ultimate is an understanding of the meaning of history. The Ultimate encounters the human in historical events—all events, cultural history as well as economic and political history, natural history as well as human history. Every event in the life of individuals and peoples includes an encounter with the Ultimate of Christian revelation and loyalty.
Obedience to this ongoing historical encounter with the Ultimate has parallels with the Marxist concern with history and with justice in obedience to that history.

The best of Christian practice has parallels even with nationalism, for Christian loyalty to the Ultimate also gives meaning to our sense of place. We live our lives in some place of sleep, some table of eating, some neighborhood of residence, some bioregion of planet Earth, and yes some set of political districts, including a nation. Our obedient responses to the Ultimate Almightyness are carried out in these locals and within these networks of humans, animals, vegetation, soils, atmospheres, water tables, sunlight, rainfall, and so on. Love of our nation can be a penultimate loyalty within our ultimate loyalty to the Ultimate.

So at its best, Christianity is a religion; for true Christian faith expresses ultimate loyalty to the Ultimate, rather than manifesting some quasi-religion substitute that expresses ultimate loyalty to that which is not ultimate.

This definition of religion and of true Christianity depends on some experience of the “Ultimate.” In our culture there is often a complete loss of personal experience of the Ultimate, or even the inclination to experience Ultimacy. The Final Reality that is the Source of our lives as well as the Tomb of all temporal processes can seem to be only a power of negation to this temporally addicted population. Little revelation has come to most people that this Final Reality is like a devoted parent who is doing all things well. Therefore, most people have no willingness or even right to call this Final Reality their God, their ultimate loyalty. They have not heard that there is no forgiveness anywhere else, no fresh start in authentic realism anywhere else. So they are stuck with quasi-religions of some sort—filling the place in their social lives that belongs to a religious practice with substitutes for religion, with ultimate loyalties to that which is not ultimate—perhaps to a pantheon of temporal loyalties that will only disappoint these “worshipers” with the absence of Ultimacy.

For a further exploration of this understanding of the Christian religion I recommend my recently created each-to-teach course on Christian theologizing. You can download it free of charge with this URL:

http://www.realisticliving.org/UR1/0ChristiansWhoAreWe.pdf

And for a whole book on Christian theologizing, I have written nothing better than The Love of History and the Future of Christianity. If you want this long view of the past and future of Christian theologizing send me $20 and I will will rush you a copy postage free.

And for a book on religion generally, I have just published The Enigma of Consciousness: a philosophy of profound humanness and religion, a book that fully defines and illustrates the philosophical undergirding for seeing religion as a vital part of every society. If you want further clarification on this complex topic send me $25 and I will will rush you a copy postage free.

Both of these recommended books are also available from i-Universe as e-books for $3.99.

And don’t hesitate to correspond with me about any of these crucial topics.
jgmarshall@cableone.net

One of the ways that a vital next Christianity comes into being is through vigorous discussion.

The post Religion and Quasi-Religion first appeared on Realistic Living.

I Love Politics

Ronald Reagan was wrong
to make “regulation” a curse word
and create disdain for government,
politics, and politicians.

I say, let us love politics
and piss on the private sector.

Let us make business obey the rules.
and let us create better rules—
stricter rules—and enforce them
immaculately.

If any business persists in
believing that it has “no limits,”
let us take away its incorporation.
Let us outlaw its very existence.

If billionaires insist on doing
whatever they like with the
billions that we earned for them,
let us tax them into millionaires.

And welfare?
Let us put everyone in society
on welfare.
Let us build everyone parks
and common facilities
and schools, and environmentally
clean places, and fresh air,
and fresh water, and sound ground
and nutritious food,
and safe products of every sort.

Yes, let us put everyone on welfare
by giving everyone a minimal safety net,
for all may fall, at any moment,
in this fast changing era,
into dire needs.

Yes, let us assure everyone
of a minimum of elemental support
whether they wish to work or not
whether they can work or not
whether they are sane or not
drunk or not
children or not
elderly or not

Let us decide together
county by county
what that minimum support
shall be,
and let us take pleasure
(those of us who have
more than the minimum)
in sharing our more
with those who have
less than the minimum.

And let us also honor work,
socially meaningful work.
Let us spread the privilege of work,
and let each of us be properly
rewarded for our meaningful work.
Let those who work receive more
than the minimum of social support.

But as we work for our proper remuneration,
let us not loose sight
of the truth that good work is fun,
that good work is a privilege,
the privilege of serving
our sister and brother humans
and our sister and brother living beings
with contributions
that are meaningful
to them
and therefore to us.

Work is not a curse
or a necessary evil—
the not doing of which
makes us unworthy—
unworthy of social support,
unworthy of basic esteem.

Our existence alone
makes us worthy of support.
Work, meaningful work is a privilege
and meaningful work needs
to be economically supported
so we can keep on doing
this meaningful work.

If our work is not meaningful,
if it is destructive or unnecessary,
let us refuse to do it.
Let us starve;
let us go homeless;
yes, let us even walk, rather than ride,
before we do meaningless work.

But more than that, let all of us
who have the privilege of meaningful work
make certain that no one starves
that no one goes homeless
that no one is denied the minimum
of transportation, health care
cultural enrichment, and meaningful work.

Yes, that is my politics:
PUT ALL OF US ON WELFARE,
for each of us may need it.
And let us make this welfare
an affirmation of our existence
not a disgraceful condition
or a temptation to
lazy indulgence.

And let us admit that all of us are lazy,
that all of us are indulgent,
the billionaire as well as
the impoverished dope head
roaming the streets
in a daze.

Let us admit that the
billionaire is also in a daze
the daze of having no limits.
Let us cure the billionaire
of this daze
by assisting him or her
to support the minimum
needs of everyone who exists,
as well as the needs of the Whole-Earth dynamic
that makes serving human needs
(and frog needs)
possible.

Let us convince
the billionaires
and even the millionaires
that only a small part
of their wealth is their very own
to do with whatever they like.
The rest of their wealth
is a public trust
a pool of public, not private, possibilities
which they must work out
with the rest of us.

Indeed, let us move toward
the realization that all
accumulations of wealth
are a public achievement
and a public trust
with which to serve the public
and to serve the public
as the public itself
chooses to be served.

Yes, let us piss on the private sector,
to whatever extent the private sector
does not voluntarily
abolish its private omnipotence
in public
service.

The post The Cry for Equity first appeared on Realistic Living.

Loving God
means trusting the Final Reality to be doing all things well.
Denying the climate crisis mean denying
the scientific facts
about God’s doings –
denying responsibility for the stronger winds in tornado alley,
for the fiercer droughts and fires in Western places,
for the wilder oceans in New York City subways.
And these clearly undeniable facts
are only the beginning.

As Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets slide into the oceans,
entire Pacific islands disappear beneath the brine,
along with coastlands in Florida and Bangladesh.
Let us also weep for New Orleans.
Yes, even a few Texans know
that it is not wise to mess
with Mother Nature.

The poetry of prophetic ethics for Century 21 includes recognizing that loving God means loving planet Earth and all that takes place on this planet and all the fails to take place. Loving God means loving the plain truth of things, loving that human choices matter – that human choices play a role in historical outcomes. The human actions that have derived from our addiction to the great benefits of the fossil fuel enhancements have played a role in Earth-life consequences. Our future actions as a species can play a role in moderating these consequences, perhaps significantly extending the life of our species and other Earth species.

Too often missing from this ecological conversation is the vision that the familiar symbol “Mother nature” is one of the masks of God, the God of the prophets, the devotion of these ancient Hebrew luminaries, the devotion of Jesus, of Paul, and yes of Mohammed. Loving the Earth is part of loving the Creator of this Earth. Yes, creation is a story, a myth taking place in a fictitious other realm where a humanoid-like Supremacy calls for the coming into being of the coming into being. But this old story, while clearly just a story, is a story about the Mysterious truth of our being here on Earth. This story also claims that our earthly being here is derived from a Final Source that does all things well. “It is good,” God cries out in this story, “it is all very good.” This is still a faith to live by.

Loving this good Earth is part of loving God, the God of biblical lore. If we are not devoted to this planet, we are not devoted to this God. This is a clear axiom for Christian, Jewish, and Muslim ethical thought, as well as for ethical thought everywhere. “Global warming,” “climate crisis” (or by whatever name) is a realistic challenge to the human species by that Final Reality revered as Divine by the true prophets of every age.

And global warming is not the only challenge being faced in this comprehensive love of Earth-and-God. Our reckless species has acquired the power to wreak havoc, and has succumbed to the thoughtless greed of polluting for quick benefits the rivers, the oceans, the air, the soils, the diversity of life of this one inhabitable planet within our reach. This thoughtless addiction to recklessness seems to respect no bounds. This attitude includes hatred of governments that have the power to restrain it. It hates any democratic movement that might issue in a responsible governance of our excesses. It must therefore hate the poor and middle classes for fear that they might awaken to their mistreatments and take charge of governing power. This defensive hatred toward the needed changes has corrupted education into a fight against, instead of for, the truth. It has underfunded education lest too many poorer people become wise about the hateful scam that is taking place. It has over-policed and filled the jails with those who are unlikely to vote for the status quo of unrestrained destruction. However unconsciously these measures are being taken, the root malady is a lack of love for humanity, for Earth, for Reality as a Whole.

The wide-spread rulership of “Satan’s Liars’ Kingdom” was a powerful symbol known to Jesus and his first century listeners. This strange symbol has the power to interpret life in the 21st century as well. This grim vision of the human condition provides us with a foil for understanding Jesus’ announcement of a now arriving and surely coming “Kingdom of God.” We can now view the Kingdom of God (the Reign of Reality) as a rebirth of love for the Earth and for that Mysterious Final Power revered as the Earth’s Creator. This Kingdom of God is not an escape from Earth to some other planet, nor an escape from material existence to some spirit realm of our flawed imagination. Rather, the Kingdom of God comes here on Earth as the Gospels clearly say. This Reign of Final Reality comes here on Earth among the living and dying, flourishing and suffering, human and inhuman communities of consciousness. Our sin, our estrangement from the Real, our despair over our real lives is vast beyond our comprehension. But our deep essence of trust in the Truth, our liberation from ego, and our compassion for all things is even more vast than our depravity.

The recovery of our true being begins today with a recovery of our material nature, our identification with dirt, air, water, fire, our body and blood participation in the horrors and glories of history. This fresh materialism is very different from the mechanistic materialism fostered by the now defunct types of physics, biology, psychology, and sociology. Our fresh materialism sees the enigma of consciousness mysteriously interpenetrating the bodies of living beings and their inescapable relations with the soils, air, waters, flora, fauna, of Earth. This consciousness is boundlessly WILDER than anything capable of old or new mathematical ordering. This consciousness is a capacity to make choices that have no cause except the conscious choice itself. This WILDNESS, so unthinkable in the older sciences, so incomprehensible by any science is very deep. It is so deep that only consciousness itself and look upon consciousness and partly describe its mysterious presence. Like the plain dirt of Earth, consciousness is also part of what we mean by “Earth.” As far as we know, consciousness has appeared no where else. And if it has appeared elsewhere, it is only because consciousness is somehow built into the cosmos as a dynamic we are barely beginning to understand. What we do know if we are willing to look into our own conscious beings is that we are engaged in a powerful sensual relatedness to this planet and to this planet’s Mysterious Creator. This is not a debatable truth held only in somebody’s religious dogma. It is a description of the WAY IT IS, and an affirmation of the WAY IT IS. This understanding of the WAY IT IS reveals how a love of the Earth is part of the love of God and how the love of God includes a love of the Earth.

Loving the Earth

Loving the Earth begins with our sensual awareness of our sights and sounds, tastes and smells, and every feeling of our body – outwardly and inwardly related. This sensual awareness is also an awareness of the sensor, the consciousness that is the aware being having the awareness. Loving the Earth continues with an awareness of our desires, emotions, & thoughts in both their essential and neurotic forms. And all this wondrous psychology of personal awareness reveals only one part of our love of the Earth.

Love of the Earth also includes an awareness and participation in our intimacies – of our consciousness-to-consciousness relations with every living being. We all experience this dynamic, however poorly we understand what consciousness is or what intimacy is.

Still further, love of the Earth includes participation in the essential social processes of human society – those inescapable commonalities of cultural, economic, and political processes. We can be aware of our inability to escape from all these ever-present social processes, while at the same time we can also be aware of the fragmentary, changing, and corrupted qualities of the historical manifestations of each of these essential processes. We can also be aware of our capacities to change these social manifestations.

By “cultural processes” I mean our participation in languages, arts, and religions; our participation in the disciplines of learning, methods of thinking, and fabrics of education; and our participation in the styles of association, moralities, and roles of participation. We are inescapably Earthlings participating in a set of cultural processes. By “economic processes” I mean all the ways we turn Earth gifts into useful goods and services. By “political processes” I mean all the ways we make group decisions about anything and everything. The fact that all these essential social processes have been corrupted in their existing manifestations by our various estrangements from Reality does not undo the fact that these essential processes are an unavoidable gift of our Creator. And this inexhaustible Source is also giving us the wherewithal to improve, repair, and replace the manifest forms of these social commonalities.

Loving the Earth is loving our lives as Earthlings and loving all the other Earthlings who Earth along with us. It is a complex thing to love the Earth, it violates all the rules, it constantly makes better rules, it exceeds infinitely living by the rules. At the same time it has respect for rules, it sees how rules can be collected wisdom for realistic living. Nevertheless, realistic living is too vast to be entirely captured by any set of rules. Loving the Earth is a form of ecstasy, of numinous connection to the Final Mysterious Source of the Earth and its attendant sun, moon, planets, and stars. Loving the Earth is axiom number one of an adequate ethics for realistic living in the Century 21 and beyond.

The post Loving God Means Loving the Earth first appeared on Realistic Living.

It has happened that human beings have projected the quality of human consciousness onto a tree or mountain. In these cases it is relatively easy to understand that such projections are projections, not facts. But let us notice how often we stub our toe on some inanimate object, and then take out our wrath on that object as if it had intended to hurt us. We also project the human form of consciousness upon our pets – a type of consciousness that they do not actually possess. Our dogs and cats are conscious beings, and we humans share in the type of consciousness they have, but these other intelligent, mammalian species do not manifest the uniquely human symbol-using, art-creating, language-forming, culture-building form of consciousness.

With our fellow human beings, we are also projecting. Let us notice that we do not know from direct experience whether another human being is conscious or not. And in fact we often project consciousness upon someone who is actually asleep or fully distracted. They are not “there” as we say, even though we thought they were. Most of the time our projection of human consciousness upon other human beings is accurate to a large degree. These other human beings are clearly providing responses that we can interpret to be consistent with a projection of our own personally experienced mode of consciousness upon these other upright-walking primates.

So, our capacity for projection, though often wrong, is also a great gift. “Projection” might be defined as our best guess about the impending future. If we understand that all projections are guesses, then we can be open to correcting our projections as the ever-impending future unfolds with corrective inputs to our consciousness. So viewed, projecting is simply part of the process of learning. Being clear and definite about what we currently think is a form of sensitivity to the next inputs from Reality – inputs that may challenge and potentially enrich our thinking. Openness to the future does not mean being an empty container that is blown this way and that by every input. Openness to the future means a willingness to have our projections contradicted, so that we can create projections that are more accurate to the Reality in which we exist. There is something humbling about these insights, for they entail realizing that our sense of reality is always a projection created by us. And because our projections are created by us, they are always wrong to a significant degree.

All Thinking is Projection

All thinking is projection and all projection includes some sort of thinking. This claim may be surprising to some of us. It is not commonly understood that all thinking is projection. We sometimes believe that our thinking dropped into our minds from some dependable social authority or perhaps from some magical source. This is never true. We have simply chosen to adopt some projection invented by someone else. Our thinking does have social sources, but even though these sources apply, our thinking is still a guess about how Reality is working. Sometimes we believe that our thinking has come about through our own orderly effort to observe objectively and arrive logically at a conclusion that is therefore dependably true. But this process of thought also arrives only at guesses that may need to change with further thought. Our thinking does have observational and logical sources (an intuitive sources as well), but though these sources apply, our thinking is still a guess about how Reality is working.
All thinking is a projection on the future for the sake of making a next decision in the present. Sometimes is seems true that there is not time for serious thinking to take place – that is, our projection happens without taking time for serious thought, we simply act before thinking and then think afterward. Take for example, the situation in which we mistake a stick for a snake. The sort of thinking and responding happens very quickly. We are moving away before we have time to observe carefully, think logically, and act appropriately. We have nevertheless, projected “snake” upon a stick. This was an act of thought, though a very fast one, not worthy perhaps of the status of “serious thought.” But even with our so called “serious thought” that we have taken time to shape, we are still guessing about Reality, We are still projecting mental creations upon an ongoing Mysteriousness that we only partially understand.

This awareness about projecting has great importance for our interpersonal relations. Men commonly project the male experience of living upon the females among whom they live. This male thinking is typically taken from a patriarchal culture in which unquestioned assumptions have been taken as self evident. In spite of much liberation of women and men from these older habits of thought, it still requires serious humility on the part of most men to realize that women’s experience is something different from what we men are typically inclined to project upon them. For example, if our women friends are gifted, as many women are, with an intense emotional intelligence, we can be surprised by the speed with which they catch on to certain things that our step-by-step intellectual methods take more time to figure out. Also, women are often sensitive to our unconscious patterns of male entitlement – which entitlement is simply a projection of the typical male ways of not seeing reality clearly. The fact that this pattern of projecting has dominated societies for the last five or six thousand years does not make it something more dependable.

Women also project thought patterns upon men that are not in accord with the life of those actual males. Nevertheless, women’s projections upon men are, as a rule, far more accurate than men’s projections upon women. Nevertheless, it is true that projecting is not something unique to the male gender. All thinking is projection no matter what sex or culture or class of humans we belong to, or think we belong to.

Projection in Politics

In the broad social realm, especially the political realm of endeavor, projection is also an important dynamic to notice. Entire ideologies are projected upon the social scene that do not correspond with the facts of ongoing social life. For example, we need to question the commonly held form of political thought that promotes less taxation of the wealthy and argues that providing more investment funds to the investors creates more jobs that effectively “trickle down” to the well-being of everyone. This entire system of thought is a projection, a projection that the facts of social life overwhelmingly contradict. Our sluggish, job-deficient economy does not need more investors: it needs more customers. People without jobs are not spending money. If money is not spent, investors cannot make a profit, so they stop investing. (Perhaps they turn to speculating, which produces nothing.) When governments pamper investors with an excessive percentage of social wealth, the consequence is that investors stop creating jobs. Lack of jobs further suppresses the circulation of money, which further suppresses profits, which further suppresses job creation, which further suppresses the vitality of the whole economy, and so on. Strange as it must seem to the people who are addicted to a wealth-pampering ideology, their projected “truth” is entirely opposite to the facts.

Indeed, here is a projection of thought that is more in keeping with the reality that is going on: if the people who have money gave half of it to their government, and then that government redistributed such wealth to citizens who will spend it, this would inspire investment, create more jobs, provide more money to those who spend it, enliven the whole economy, which would then enable the society to function better for the benefit of everyone.
In spite of the supportive feedback from reality for such unpopular guesses about social life, the wealth-pampering ideologues insist upon their projection to the detriment of all people, including themselves. Consider this: if the wealthy held all the money (a full monopoly-game type win) we would have no economy at all. Even the so-called “control” that wealthy people hope for is an illusion. Only a vigorous popular trust in the exchange system provides some control to people with money. So as more wealth power is centered in fewer people, the more out-of-control the whole society becomes. If, however, wealth power were more equitably spread to all the citizens, better control of what needs control for a constructive destiny would be established. These sentences are better projections upon the future, because the feedback already received supports them better than that same feedback supports the wealth-pampering projections.

The political drama in the current U.S., Canada, and other places is in large measure a fight between these two contradictory projections upon the flow of social life in the world today. In order to resolve this stalemate in political life, we will need to notice the dynamic of projection, the dynamic of feedback from Reality, and our capacity as humans to project better guesses, better thinking – thinking that honors Reality rather than disintegrating into stubborn defenses of those indefensible projections that our consciousness is making and clinging to for the sake of supporting attitudes of greed, cultural biases, and self images that are far from the truth of our actual lives.

Projection is a human gift, but when our projections meet negation from Reality, we need to change what we project. It does not matter that our next projections will also be limited and will one day need correction. Our untenable projections must be replaced, even though our replacements will also need to be replaced in time – perhaps a short time, perhaps a long time. Reality calls us to move in this moment of decision toward greater realism. Those who ignore Reality will pay a stiff price in ruin and despair and inflict these costs on many others. It is in this sense that we, humanity, must move forward, not backward into patterns that may have worked, or seemed to have worked, in past centuries. Thoughtless passivity on these matters is a core evil that each of us is called to correct. Project and correct, project and correct, never stop learning.

Projection and Christian Theology

Clinging to untenable projections is a secular description of the Christian theological category “sin.” We are all sinners in this regard. We are often knowingly sinners, and more often unconsciously sinners in this regard. We are not sinners because we are projecting, that is a gift of authentic humanness, a gift from that Final Reality that has created our species. We are sinners because we believe what we think – that is, we cling to what we currently project to be real. We passionately believe in false projections that we think we must live for, and perhaps die for. The “truth” we can authentically live and die for is not some truth of our own creation, a projection that is always wrong to some extent. Rather, the truth that we can authentically live and die for is an openness to Reality, a trust in Reality to correct all our projections, to affirm our fragments of truth, and to negate our always vast inadequacies. The truth we can authentically live and die for is also the courage to invent new projections in the knowledge that these projections will also be corrected by Reality.

When Martin Luther advised his flock to sin boldly, this is part of what he meant. Move beyond your older, obviously obsolete religious beliefs and project better ones, knowing they may also be inadequate. God will forgive your mistakes: that is, Final Reality’s enduring Presence will further correct you, accept you, and challenges you to guess again your life projections and consequent projects. Authentic living is a continual leap into the full face of a Mysteriousness that you can never fathom. Such leaping is Christian faith. “Faith” Christianly understood means trust in Reality. Such trust is the only solution to all that ails the deep life of the human species. This does not mean that Christianity is the only religion, for if this trust is expressed in other-than-Christian language, it is still the healing balm that humanity awaits. Trust in Reality is a discovery of an elemental healing of human life, however such healing is discovered or talked about.

The post The Glory & Tragedy of Projection first appeared on Realistic Living.

As radical pedagogues, it is our assignment to be as clear as we can, honoring all sources of truth – scientific, contemplative, and socially practical,workable ethical insight.   Radical pedagogues just tell the truth, live the truth, keep learning the truth, and stick to doing so.

We are not responsible for other people accepting the truth we speak.  That is their responsibility.  We cannot manipulate them or force them to see what we see.  We  can only present to them an opportunity to see what we see, and thereby provide them the opportunity to choose or not choose to see it.  We can in no way prevent them from going along with their current indifference, half truths, and downright lies.  We can perhaps show them how what they believe or tend to believe is not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  We can ask them to inquire of themselves if they actually believe what they take to be true.  We might even make fun of the lies they believe, perhaps humiliating them for their gullibility in comforting themselves or  hurtful themselves with their untruths.  But we have no power to hinder them from rejecting the truth we try to share.  And we have no power  to assist them in submitting to that new edge of truth that we are presenting.  This is their choice, and their choice alone.  We are powerless to change that.  We might profit from the style of Jesus, who said what he had to say, and keeping on walking down the road to say his say to others.  Truth is a matter to be settled between the essentially free person and the Author of that freedom.

Therefore, our success as a prophet of truth is not measured by other people’s responses.   Our success is only measured by our actually telling the truth, and how well we do so.   We must expect all who live otherwise to be offended by the truth.  We must expect people to delay for days or even years before they hear the truth that we speak.  We have no control over when they hear, or if they ever hear, or even if they want to hear.  Our pedagogy is itself a lie if we assume we have any control over the results of our pedagogy.  We may never know for sure the results of our pedagogy.   And we do not need to know.

If people respond with bitter tears over having been so gullible as to believe the lies that we have challenged, we can guess that Reality is using our words to bring these persons home to Reality.  We can welcome them with our certainly of Reality’s forgiveness and provision of a fresh start.  But we have no control over whether they will accept such forgiveness or begin a fresh start.

All we can know for sure is whether we are speaking the Truth that Reality has revealed to us.  And we know this not by other peoples responses, but by our own inner assurance, sometimes called “The Holy Spirit.”  This Spirit of Truth rising in our own most personal being is our only certainty.   Such certainty is a solitary thing.  Others can speak truth to us that we have not heard, but to hear the truth that others speak means to hear it from the Holy Spirit of Truth.  There is no other authority.  No one can tell us the truth except the Holy Spirit of Truth.  And we cannot control what the Holy Spirit tells us.  And we cannot control what the Holy Spirit tells other people.

Reality will provide us with people who join us in loving the Holy Truth and with people how reject us and the truth we tell.  Both are valuable gifts to us..   As Jesus suggested to his disciples when they meet rejection: “Dust off your shoes in protest to that village and move on to the next village.”  We certainly to not need do moan or complain about rejection, or waste time analyzing the rejectors.   Just tell the truth, and move on to tell the truth some more.  The results are entirely out of our control.

It often happens that we can learn from our rejections about how to dig deeper into how to tell the truth.  There are indeed ways to skillfully maneuver our teaching so as to lead listeners toward that embarrassing “Ah Hah.”  But such skill does in no way change the truth that our job as radical pedagogues is simply to tell the truth. We just tell the truth in this real situation to the humans in that time and place.  Tell the truth knowing that it is not the whole truth, and that more truth will come our way, perhaps expanding and correcting the truth that we are now telling.   Our commission is to tell the truth that we know the Holy Spirit is establishing in our inmost being and calling upon us to communicate to our generation.

If it takes a hundred years for most people to hear what we say and act upon that truth, such delay, of lack of it, is not our concern.  To be concerned about the results of our witnessing is a type of co-dependance, a craving for support that we in no way need.  The deniers of truth have no support to give us.  And if they cease to lie, that is still no support.  Our only support comes from the Spirit of Truth.  And to the extent we deny that, we remain among the liars.

Of course, we are  always among the liars in ways that we do not yet know.  But we can be open to abandoning our own lies as the Holy Spirit audits our lives.  These audits can come in any way whatsoever, but most of these Holy audits will come in connection with some other person who has in a moment of relationship with us told us the truth.  But we do not thereby become dependent on these truth tellers.  And the truth they tell is not true because they are persons who usually tell the truth, but only because (whatever their character) they somehow stumbled into telling us the truth in this particular moment of our conversation with Holy Spirit.

On his way to accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Martin Luther King Jr. gave a speech in England that may be one of the clearest witnesses to truth I have ever heard.  It was skillfully done, but it was powerful and remains powerful merely because he spoke the truth.  And that truth lives on even though it may not be the whole truth about anything.  It remains a witness to Holy Spirit that continues to ask humans to return home to Reality.

Click here to listen to King’s talk

The post Radical Pedagogy first appeared on Realistic Living.