What's the Big Idea?

Frederick Nietzsche famously claimed, "God is dead." There is a joke among theologians that God has since made the same claim about Nietzsche, implying of course that God has had the last laugh, and the joke is on Frederick.

Or is it? Was Nietzsche at least partly correct? Is God dead? Nietzsche did not believe in God at all, and his proclamation was an expression of his own atheism. I don't believe Nietzsche was correct, but I have heard the question asked, Did God ever live, specifically the theistic God of history? This God has been described with certain attributes: separate and apart from humanity; a Being; an omniscient judge who selectively intervenes into the affairs of human beings. But is this in fact who or what God is and does?

I do not have the answers to these questions, but see tremendous significance in the re-examination of how human beings understand and strive to know God. Throughout history our religious identities have been used to separate us from each other, have been grounds for the imprisonment, torture, and murder of anyone with different beliefs. Christian violence against non-Christians is a blot on history. Christian violence against fellow Christians is no less horrific. The current violence in Iraq between Sunni and Shiite Muslims is another example of the complete perversion of the purpose of acknowledging and worshipping God in the first place. History is replete with blood-drenched tales of how one conception of God has been used to justify unspeakable cruelty and inhumanity against anyone with a different conception of God.

So. The Buddha taught his followers to abandon concepts and notions. Have we draped God with inadequate human concepts and notions that do little to help us to actually understand and know God? Are these instead the source of conflict and misunderstanding among peoples and cultures?

I think that these questions and themes are important and worth exploring. I don't have the answers, but feel that the questions are compelling enough that it is a worthwhile investment of time to pursue the answers. If we remove the theistic trappings from our understanding of God, what do we have left? Is the emerging understanding of God one that can be shared in common across faiths and cultures? I think it is worth finding out. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

Book Review: Jesus for the Non-Religious, by John Shelby Spong (Spirituality and Practice.com)

Theism.info

Interfaith Holidays and Holy Days, Week of May 21, 2007

Shavuot (Shavuos), May 22-24, 2007:
The Feast of Shavuot is celebrated on the 6th day of the Jewish month of Sivan, and concludes the 40-day Counting of the Omer. Shavuot marks the day on which God appeared to Moses at the summit of Mount Sinai and delivered the Ten Commandments, thus entering into a holy covenant with the people of Israel.

According to Holidays.net, there are a number of traditional ways to celebrate this important holiday, including consuming dairy foods (re: Israel was described as the "Land of Milk and Honey"), keeping an all-night vigil on the eve of the holiday, and decorating homes and synagogues with flowers to mark the fact that Mount Sinai was described as being lush and verdant.

The Ten Commandments are the first of several hundred laws that comprise the Torah, the Holy Law of God and the most sacred scriptures in all of Judaism. The reproduction of each Torah scroll is a painstaking process, as each one is produced by hand, and only by the most well-trained scribes. It is a high honor to be asked to read from the Torah scroll during synagogue services.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Shavuot on the Net (Holidays.net)

Chabad.org (Shavuos)

Shavuot Customs and Traditions (Mazornet.com)

Contemporary Shavous Cuisine (Jewish World Review.com)

What Are the Ten Commandments? (AskMoses.com)

Interfaith Marriage and Families

I'm the Catholic half of an interfaith marriage, and my wife, who is Jewish, is the other half. We are still finding our way down the interfaith/multifaith path, but we are mainly happy to make the journey. Yet neither of us is naive enough to think that everyone else in the world holds the same positive view of marriage arrangements like ours. Parents and religious institutions can and have traditionally taken a negative view of such marriages. The source of any such opposition is pretty predictable. Parents want their children to pass on their family's heritage. Religious institutions don't want their congregations to thin out.

My wife and I are very fortunate in that our respective families are giving us the space we need to evaluate what we want for our children and to make the decisions that work for us. We didn't arrive at this point without some real struggle and confusion. The two of us discovered that love and goodwill would only take us so far down the road. As our relationship became more serious, it became necessary to do some deep soul searching and then open up to each other to share what we'd found. This is an ongoing process, and is by no means over. It has, however, helped us to understand ourselves and each other better, to grow closer and more intimate as we work to create a home that is welcoming to both faith traditions.

For interfaith couples in general, there are any number of possible outcomes that can result from these deeply and intensely personal discussions. Some couples opt for no religion at all in the home, leaving it to their children to forge the religious path of their own choosing. Some couples opt to include only one faith tradition in their home, with the other partner either celebrating his or her own faith separately, or else converting to the household faith, while other couples choose to celebrate both faith traditions. In terms of deciding to celebrate both of our faith traditions, the questions people ask us the most have to do with how we'll raise our kids. We have been outright discouraged by more than one person from going the dual-faith route, and others have merely questioned how such an arrangement can work. In most of these cases, the questioner is primarily concerned as to what type of identity issues this might cause for our children someday.

However, despite the seeming contradictions inherent to this approach, we're not convinced that our decision will confuse our children or result in their having no cultural or faith identity as adults. In the PsychCentral.com article, "The Emotional Challenges of Interfaith Families" (cited below), Dr. Allan Schwartz comments that this is not necessarily cause for concern or otherwise threatening to the healthy development of a child's identity:

"It is less the presence of a single religious identity in the home and more the parental style of discipline and involvement with the children and with each other that produces well-adjusted children. Research shows that children whose parents were firm, consistent, involved and affectionate did best in school and in their relationships later in life. The particular religious affiliation of one or both parents is less important to good adjustment than the fact that the parents love and support their children."

Choosing to marry someone of a different faith tradition than one's own, including no faith tradition at all, is an implicit admission that one has accepted a less-than-orthodox arrangement for marriage and child rearing. In our marriage my wife and I have found that the key to making peace with the sacrifices inherent to any interfaith arrangement is open communication and maintaining a strong sense of trust. The benefits of relating this way are obviously not limited to questions of faith and religion, but for any harmony to exist around such questions these are absolutely necessary. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (Links Updated 05/27/07)

The Challenges of Interfaith Marriage, and Half Life: Jewish Tales from Interfaith Homes (Interfaith Radio, May 24, 2007)

"The Emotional Challenges of Interfaith Marriage," by Allan Schwartz. PsychCentral.com, December 12, 2006

Interfaith Marriage Discussion Board (Beliefnet.com)

Interfaith Marriage Stumbling Blocks and Guidance (About.com)

Divorce Rates Among Inter-Faith Marriages (ReligiousTolerance.org)

Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name

One of the meanings of the word "devil" is slanderer, and to this extent at least, Devil is a title richly deserved by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. His passing this week has unleashed a flood of commentary, a great deal of it based upon several decades' worth of his hate speech condemning everything and everyone from the civil rights movement, homosexuals, feminists, Jews and other non-Christians, non-evangelical/born-again Christians, Democrats, the ACLU... the list goes on and on. In Jerry's world, there was no end to his list of enemies and destroyers of his vision of a Christian America. Likewise, there was no insult too debased, no claim too fantastic to fling against those he imagined to be a threat to the moral foundation of the American Republic. The extent of Falwell's power and influence is a matter of some debate, but if his reach exceeded his grasp it did not deter him from continuously striving to grab that brass ring.

Hate is a many-headed creature, of course, and the loss of Falwell does not leave the far, far right without other champions. There continue to be members of the "Religious" Right who will go to any extreme to prove they can out-hate anyone. Seeing as how Rev. Falwell and others of his ilk are self-described Christians, it is worth recalling the words of Jesus, the putative founder of the belief and value system they espouse: "Stop judging, that you will not be judged." And, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them."

- Doug L.

Bill Maher's Touching Tribute to Jerry Falwell


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Slate.com:

"Faith-Based Fraud." (May 16, 2007)

"The Devil and Jerry Falwell." (May 15, 2007)

"Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade." (May 15, 2007)

"The Legacy of Falwell's Bully Pulpit." The Washington Post, May 19, 2007

"Jerry Falwell's Deal with the Devil." Baltimore Chronicle, May 16, 2007

Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson-Usama Bin Laden Quiz (FunnyStrange.com)

Interfaith Reader Recommends...

Living Buddha, Living Christ, by Thich Nhat Hanh

"Twenty years ago at a conference I attended of theologians and professors of religion, and Indian Christian friend told the assembly, 'We are going to hear about the beauties of many traditions, but that does not mean that we are going to make fruit salad.' When my turn came to speak I said, 'Fruit salad can be delicious! I have shared the Eucharist with Father Daniel Berrigan, and our worshipping became possible because of the sufferings we Vietnamese and Americans have shared over many years.' Some of the Buddhists present were shocked to hear that I had participated in the Eucharist, and many Christians seemed truly horrified. To me, religious life is life. I do not see any reason to spend one's whole life tasting just one kind of fruit. We human beings can be nourished by the best values of many traditions." (Pp. 1-2.)

That is the sound of two hands clapping in support of the notion that it is no irreverence or betrayal to participate fully in the rituals and sacraments of faith traditions different than one's own. Quite to the contrary, Buddhist monk and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh sees this as a means to deepening and strengthening one's own spirituality. Exploring the truths taught by many faiths and partaking of the rituals and teachings of other faith traditions s a way of honoring the best values of one's own faith tradition. As Hanh explains:

Before I met Christianity, my only spiritual ancestor was the Buddha. But when I met beautiful men and women who are Christians, I came to know Jesus as a great teacher. Since that day, Jesus Christ has become one of my spiritual ancestors. I do not feel any conflict within me. Instead, I feel stronger because I have more than one root.

This position underscores Hanh's thesis that no one faith has cornered the market on all truth about God and human existence. To fully expand upon this theme, Hanh juxtaposes the lives and teachings of to two of history's epochal religious figures, Siddhartha Gautama, or the Buddha, and Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus Christ.

Buddhism is not Christianity and Jesus is not the Buddha. However, it is not Hahn's intention to pursue either of these points. Rather, his writing is the pursuit of the common ground shared by both the Buddha and Jesus, and the respective faith traditions named for them. To be sure, there are important ways in which Buddhism and Christianity differ, particularly with regard to the immortal human soul, the unique and singular role of Jesus
in the salvation of the human race, and Christianity's specific monotheistic foundation. However, from Hanh's interfaith point of view, these differences only matter with regard to the emphasis placed on them, and are not necessarily obstacles to real dialogue and understanding between faiths:

It is good that an orange is an orange and a mango is a mango. The colors, the smells, and the tastes are different, but looking deeply, we see that they are both authentic fruits. Looking more deeply, we can see the sunshine, the rain, the minerals, and the earth in both of them...If religions are authentic, they contain the same elements of stability, joy, peace, understanding, and love. The similarities as well as the differences are there. They differ only in terms of emphasis (emphasis added). Glucose and acid are in all fruits, but their degrees differ. We cannot say that one is a real fruit and the other is not.

This, to me, is the most important point that the author makes, namely that no one religious tradition is the repository of the real or entire truth about who or what God is, what it is that God wants for the human race, and how we are to conduct ourselves in accordance with these truths. What can result from this exclusive type of thinking but separation between human beings that manifests itself through hatred, violence, discrimination and intolerance? If we belong to a faith tradition that teaches "stability, joy, peace, understanding and love," how can we possibly honor these when we have convinced ourselves that God sanctions our particular faith alone?

For a faith tradition such as Christianity, this is a very challenging notion. Jesus Christ is "the way, the truth and the life," second to none among history's religious figures. Yet, is the path to Christ paved exclusively by one's entire devotion to and belief in him and in the teachings of the church? Hanh does not think so:

The living Jesus is the Son of God who was resurrected and who continues to live. In Christianity, you have to believe in the resurrection or you are not considered a Christian. I am afraid this criterion may discourage some people from looking into the life of Jesus. This is a pity, because we can appreciate Jesus Christ as both an historical door and an ultimate door.

I happen to agree. Last year, an Israeli friend of ours asked me about my Christian faith and why I loved Jesus. I thought for a moment, and then replied that I held Jesus in deep respect and reverence for his teachings and his sacrifice on the cross. I added that when I die someday, if I discover that Jesus was not in fact the literal Son of God and was not resurrected from the dead, I would not love or revere him any less. The example of his life is strong enough reason for me to believe in and appreciate Jesus, to borrow Hanh's phrase, as an ultimate door. From this point of view, the teachings and living example of Jesus Christ can be made much more accessible to non-Christians, which in turn furthers dialogue and understanding between different people. Is this not the aim of any faith that preaches "stability, joy, peace, understanding and love"? How does exclusivity advance this aim?

Jesus preached a message of love, compassion and forgiveness. The Buddha taught his followers to treat each living creature with loving kindness and to be mindful, to truly present to each creature, in each moment. Similar teachings that intersect across faith traditions. Hanh's book reminds us of the importance of being mindful of what we emphasize in our relationships with other human beings, the differences or the similarities: The lack of understanding brings about the lack of tolerance and true love, which results in the alienation of people from the church. True understanding comes from true practice. Understanding and love are values that transcend all dogma. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Plum Village Practice Center

Buddhanet.net

World Buddhist Directory

Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings, edited by Marcus Borg

The Buddha - Jesus the Christ (Myths, Dreams, Symbols.com)

Guide to Buddhist Teaching on Reincarnation

Interlog

The A-B-Cs of How NOT To Debate God's Existence

Much like the toddler who traps ants, spiders and bees in a jar to see who will win the ensuing battle, ABC News Nightline assembled combatants from either side of the great American religious divide to debate God's existence this past week. As if this particular American discussion hadn't gone off the rails years ago, ABC helped to push it a few feet further into the gutter by hosting a moot debate over a point that cannot be proven or disproven, scientifically or otherwise. Just like the toddler's insect battle royale, this contest was completely staged for entertainment value, pointless, and ugly to watch.

In the Atheists' corner we have Brian Sapient and Kelly. And in the True Belivers' corner we have Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. Brian and Kelly are members of the Rational Response Squad, which recently sponsored a Blasphemy Challenge, providing young people with an online forum for denouncing and denying God's existence.

Kirk Cameron, of course, is the former teen star of the ABC sitcom Growing Pains, as well as the star of the apocalyptic Left Behind film series. Ray Comfort is a New Zealand-born street evangelist and founder of The Way of the Master, an anti-evolutionist/creationist "ministry" devoted to "proving" God's existence and the need for forgiveness and salvation through Jesus.

The premise for this Nightline event, the first such debate in its new "Face-Off" series, was to see which side could present the best argument for or against the existence of God. Kirk and Ray came out of their corner swinging hard, claiming to be 100% able to prove the existence of God through science, AND (listen up you religious-industrial complex types) without the need for faith. The Thunder from Down Under rattled off three primary proofs in support of his claim:

1. If something is made, there must have been a maker, a designer. Paintings, buildings, cars, etc., all must have had a maker. It is an insult to anyone's intellect to suggest that they just emerged out of nowhere. Comfort goes on to describe the intricacies of human physiology as absolute proof that the human race must have had an intelligent creator. Problem: There's nothing about Comfort's description of the miracle of the human body that can't be explained by evolutionary theory. And yet another hysterical fundamentalist completely misses the point that faith in God and belief in evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

2. Human beings have a Conscience, the distinct knowledge of right and wrong. The human sense of morality is that which separates us from the animals. However, according to Comfort, our conscience is "seared" on the outside, and the only thing that can bring it back to life is the Ten Commandments. Problem: Huh? I don't know what he exactly means by "seared," and therefore couldn't make any sense of his prescription of the Ten Commandments as a cure for this condition. I thought this state of the art non sequitur should have ended with the following punch line: "And so God said to Moses, 'Take these two tablets and call me in the morning.'" N'yuck, n'yuck, n'yuck.

3. If you seek conversion, God will reveal himself to you, and that is the ultimate proof. In this one moment you will have experiential knowledge of God's existence. Cry out, "God, I've violated your commandments," and you'll get the shock of your life. Problem: Right, OK- and I suppose anyone who doesn't get the shock of his or her life wasn't really trying, or didn't really believe that God would be revealed, or didn't really want it, whatever, etc., and so on.

In the end, I guess I just don't see how these arguments equate scientific proof of God's existence. Ray Comfort won't lose sleep if these aren't enough to convince you of the existence of God, though. That's because there are more than enough bananas around to seal the deal and win you over.

I won't take any time repeating the atheist rebuttal. I think I punched enough holes into Comfort and Cameron's "proofs" for one thing, and anyhow you can see the video online at the link provided below. You can also see more of Ray and Kirk at the Way of the Master Web site. I'll give you fair warning, though. If you visit this Web site, be sure to bring your credit card. Jesus may have given his message free of charge, but his modern day followers Ray and Kirk clearly deviate from the Way of the Master to the Way of the Master Card when it comes to "sharing" the Good News.

Moral of the Story: Belief in God is a matter of faith, not proof. I didn't need to watch Nightline to figure that out. The "debate" didn't do anything to either weaken or strengthen my faith in God, but it did rattle my faith in human beings, if just for a few moments. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

ABC Nightline, May 7, 2007

Rational Response Squad

The Way of the Master

How to End the World on a Budget: Slate.com, December 1, 2005

I'm Bananas for Jesus! t-shirt (CottonFactory.com)

Interfaith Holidays and Holy Days, Week of May 14, 2007

Feast of the Ascension of Christ, May 17, 2007

This week, Christians celebrate the feast of the Ascension of Jesus Christ into Heaven. The Gospel of Mark and of Luke describe how Christ was brought bodily into Heaven while in the presence of his eleven remaining disciples. Judas Iscariot, Jesus' betrayer and one of the original 12 Apostles, was dead by this point. He had either committed suicide (Matthew, Ch. 17, vv. 3-9), or fell from a ledge and was disembowled by the impact of the fall (Acts, Ch. 1, vv. 15-20).

Belief in and celebration of the Ascension are both universal among all Christian denominations. The feast day is traditionally marked 40 days after Easter each year. While the feast day is marked on Thursday, May 17 of this year, Catholics are required to attend Mass on Sunday, May 20, or Ascension Sunday, which is a Holy Day of Obligation.

The belief in Jesus' bodily ascension into Heaven is one of a handful of foundational beliefs that Christians affirm through the recitation of both the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. Other such foundational, universal Christian beliefs include the immaculate conception of Jesus, as well as his crucifixion, death and resurrection. Christianity teaches that upon his ascension into Heaven, Jesus joined God and the Holy Spirit, and that he shall return to earth from Heaven one day, "to judge the living and the dead" at the end of the world.

- Doug L.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Church Year.net (Ascension Feast)

The Apostles' Creed

The Nicene Creed

Interfaith Resources

In addition to the Unkosher Jesus Top Ten Interfaith Refernce URL menu, here are some other links that are worth exploring. Unkosher Jesus will try to highlight interfaith resources like this from time to time, most often under FOR FURTHER REFERENCE. These won't typically come in the form of a Top Ten. Think more in terms of John Cusak and High Fidelity, i.e., Top Five. Today's Theme: Peace, Justice and Social Action

Religions for Peace USA
("Our Mission.Religions for Peace - USA gathers representatives of religious communities in the U.S.; promotes multi-religious cooperation for peace and justice; builds on the spiritual, human, and institutional resources of its communities; enhances mutual understanding; and acts for the common good.")

The Pew Forum: Religion and Social Welfare
("Ongoing debates regarding welfare reform and faith-based initiatives touch on a sensitive area of public discourse: how Americans should care for the poor and the needy. The creation of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives in 2001 brought the work of religious organizations to the forefront of this discussion. Several years later, policymakers and religious communities alike are still divided about the participation of faith-based organizations in the delivery of federally funded social services. These debates also raise fundamental questions about whether and how government policies should reflect American religious values, including the sometimes competing ideals of personal responsibility and social justice.")

The National Conference for Community and Justice
("Our Mission. The National Conference for Community and Justice, founded in 1927 as the National Conference of Christians and Jews, is a human relations organization dedicated to fighting bias, bigotry and racism in America. NCCJ promotes understanding and respect among all races, religions and cultures through advocacy, conflict resolution and education.")

United Religions Initiative
("About URI: United Religions Initiative (URI) was founded in 2000 by an extraordinary global community committed to promoting enduring, daily interfaith cooperation and to ending religiously motivated violence. Today the URI includes thousands of members in over 65 countries representing more that 100 religions, spiritual expressions, and indigenous traditions.

"URI is a global community with spiritual heart. Members from diverse backgrounds pioneer interfaith dialogue and peacebuilding skills. Its core organizational principles include inclusive membership, self-organizing initiatives and decentralized governance. Together, we are designing an effective communications and knowledge sharing network and exchanging best practices for local, regional and global organizing. We are deepening friendships and fostering solidarity. URI believes that people everywhere when inspired to cooperate for the common good, will find solutions to end religiously motivated hate and violence and will create initiatives that build cultures of peace, justice and healing.")

Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP), Cornell University
("Mission Statement: CRESP is a nonsectarian, action-based educational organization with its roots in religious dialogue, human rights advocacy, and ethical thought.")

Interfaith Reader Recommends...

Ten Spiritual Lessons for a Balanced Life, by Robert D. Balmes

You look stressed. Or maybe you don't. How should I know? Thing is, though, the odds are very good that you feel stressed. And why not? The war in Iraq in now in its fifth year. Global Warming threatens the very existence of the human race. The middle class is squeezed by tax breaks for the very rich and evaporating social aid programs for the very poor. Gas costs over $3 a gallon. Your boss is probably a jerk (at least sometimes). Argh! How can anyone get any peace of mind these days?

If stress has ever driven you to ask a question like this, author Rob Balmes may have someof the answers you are looking for. His slender volume, Ten Spiritual Lessons for a Balanced Life, provides simple, yet provocative insights into the reality behind everyday reality and the shape of the path our life's journey is intended to take. Ten Spiritual Lessons offers unique perspectives on reality, the meaning of life, and attaining peace and contentment in this life as we travel to the next. (FULL DISCLOSURE: Rob Balmes is a friend of mine. FULLER DISCLOSURE: I won't get one red cent for any sales of Rob's book.)

The beauty for interfaith households is that this book is non-denominational. Mr. Balmes does not specifically identify or otherwise refer to any established religion or faith tradition throughout any of his discourses. One potential downside to this book is the fact that, while it is not representative of any specific faith, it is predicated upon the existence of God and the eternal nature of the human soul. Therefore its value to atheist readers out there may be limited.

The author divides the book into ten succinct chapters devoted to the following topics: Eternal Life; Reality; Love; Dimensionality; Perfection; Thought; Health; Care; Action; Realization. Each chapter concludes with a short lesson, or exercise, to reinforce its particular theme. The chapters build upon each other, with the themes woven thoughtfully as they culminate in the final chapter on Realization. Here, the book's final message is that harmony can be attained only once we have made peace with the reality of our existence and when we direct our actions to pursue those things our souls desire. The ability to behave this way calls for trust (in God, or the Universe), which in turn enables us to make counter-intuitive moves that look risky or foolish but which actually advance our interests. If Mr. Balmes' work can be compared to any faith tradition or religion, the philosophy and practices he espouse compare favorably with both Buddhism and Taoism.

Ten Spiritual Lessons isn't The Confessions of St. Augustine or the Bhagavad-Gita, but neither does it pretend to be. Rather, it is simply a collection of thought-provoking reflections and exercises that may be profound enough to positively alter the way that you view and experience the world. As Mr. Balmes writes in the introduction, "The Ten Spiritual Lessons for a Balanced Life seem simplistic in nature. Yet if read and accepted into your heart, they can be instrumental in helping you to create a more balanced and satisfying life."

-Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Ten Spiritual Lessons for a Balanced Life (Amazon.com)

Bhagavad-Gita.org

Dharma-Haven.org

Taoist Arts.net

Confessions of St. Augustine (Online Edition, Stoa Consortium)

Ostende nobis Domine, misericordiam tuam- and save us from the return of the Latin Mass

"Right turn, Clyde." Clint Eastwood used this famous phrase in the classic 70s hit, "Every Which Way but Loose." With those three magic words he was able to transform his seemingly docile orangutan companion into a four-foot high Joe Frazier.

Pope Benedict the XVI has a mean right hook of his own. Faster than you can say "dignum et justum est," the Pope is fast approaching a decision on the reinstatement of the Latin Mass. Clyde's right turn came in the form of a jarring right jab, where Benedict's right turn comes in the form of an awkward lurch backwards to a pre-Vatican II liturgical practice that has been frozen in time since it was established in 1570.

A little Vatican II background... With the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, the Latin Mass was replaced by a liturgy celebrated in the common tongue of parishioners in parishes worldwide. This important and historic shift dramatically underscored the theme of reform embodied by Pope John XXIII who convoked the council in 1962. Although he did not live to see the council complete its work and implement the reforms he had envisioned, Pope John passionately advocated for the Church to reinvigorate itself though a renewed mission to serve all of humanity and to modernize its practices as a means of accomplishing this. On his very deathbed, this visionary leader exhorted his fellow Catholics to heed the call of modernization and reform as necessary means to ensuring that all that is good about the Catholic faith would continue to be relevant: "‘Today more than ever, we are called to serve mankind as such, and not merely Catholics; to defend above all and everywhere, the rights of the human person and not merely those of the Catholic Church. It is not that the Gospel has changed: it is that we have begun to understand it better... the moment has come to discern the signs of the times, to seize the opportunity and to look far ahead."

Or not. The reforms instituted by Vatican II met with enthusiastic support among the laity, mainly because for the first time in Church history they were made to feel like fully human participants in the shape and direction of their faith. And while the reforms offended the traditional sensibilities of old school Catholics, a great many clergy did support the reforms. But, just like the culture wars here in America, a conservative backlash has been coiling in the corners of the Catholic Church and waiting for its moment to remake the Church in its former image. Now, with the installation of Benedict (the former Cardinal Ratzinger) as Pope, the Empire is definitely striking back. As Cardinal Ratzinger he served as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where he established a reputation as a conservative hard-liner. He is apparently not interested in moderating any of his views on Church policy and teaching now that he is Pope.

But whom does Benedict think that he is serving by reinstating the Latin Mass? Does he even care, i.e., is this something that he believes in so strenuously that he would support it no matter the backlash it might, and has, provoked? It certainly does not seem plausible that a majority of Catholics worldwide have blitzed the Vatican with letters demanding that Mass be celebrated in Latin. The question has even been raised as to whether there are even more than a handful of priests who are capable of celebrating Mass in this language.

Nevertheless, there is apparently a constituency for 16th century liturgical practices among the Church faithful. A cursory Internet search using the term "Latin Mass" quickly turned up the following Web URLs, among others:


* Latin Mass Magazine

* Latin Mass.org

* Una Voce.org ("One Voice")

While organizations such as these may constitute a minority of worldwide Catholics, they are apparently the ones who have the Pope's ear. Never mind how alienating this move may be to a majority of Catholics: what type of ecumenical message does this send to other Christian churches, to other non-Christian faiths in general? Vatican II was intended to transform the Church into a more outward looking institution more fully integrated into the modern world. Reinstating a dusty relic such as the Latin Mass appears to be a full-scale retreat from engagement back to a more conservative, triumphalist dogma of an older time.

While a traditionalist minority might cheer Benedict’s rightward lunge, this move can likely have critical, negative consequences for relations between the Church and Judaism. As a part of the Vatican II reforms, the Council struck the following prayer from the Good Friday liturgy: ""Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ..." In 1970 this was replaced by the following: "Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. (Silent prayer) Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen." Which version will be used if and when Benedict brings Latin back home to roost? Why should we even have to ask this question? Benedict himself could have issued a statement clarifying the Church's position on this months ago.

I am a product of the post-Vatican II Church, and for whatever flaws inherent to this process, the willingness to engage in honest and open dialogue with lay Catholics, with other Christian churches, and with non-Christian faiths was not one of them. Pope John XXIII's vision for the Church was that it fulfill its potential for greatness by adopting a more expansive view of its own mission and striving to meet the material and spiritual needs of believers and non-believers alike. Benedict's rightward tilt gives me the impression that the Church has now abandoned that stance and is only willing to meet the needs of its most fervent and unwavering supporters. What a tragic, and wholly unnecessary, blunder. What good can the Church do for the world when it is only relevant unto itself?

-Doug L. FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, July 9, 2007):

"It's All Greek to Me: Unkosher Jesus and the Latin Mass." (UnkosherJesus.net, July 9, 2007.)

Vatican II: Voice of the Church

"Rite Turn: Can the Latin Mass Make a Comback?" (Slate.com, May 4, 2007)

"Latin Mass May Offend Jews" (London Telegraph, April 28, 2007)

"French Clerics Warn Against Return of Latin Mass Traditionalists" (Catholic News.com)

"The Return of the Latin Mass" (Time.com, October 12, 2006)

Interfaith Holidays and Holy Days, Week of May 7, 2007

Today is Sunday, May 6th, which means that if you haven't completed your shopping you are out of time for finding that perfect gift to help that special Jewish someone in your life to mark Lag B'Omer. What is Lag B'Omer? I'm glad you asked that question. Lag B'Omer is one of the many ways that Judaism and Catholicism are very much alike, for like the Catholic calendar, the Jewish calendar is populated with many minor holidays and festivals. Lag B'Omer is one of these, I reckon. On the Catholic calendar, hardly a day goes by that isn't the Feast Day of St. So-and-So, or a Holy Day of Obligation to commemorate Thus-and-Such. Holidays and Holy Days of this type can be a lot to keep track of. But don't sweat the details, Unkosher Jesus is here to help. The online Interfaith Calendar may tell you the When, but Unkosher Jesus here to help explain the What, the Why and the How of each week's events.

According to the Website Judaism 101, Lag B'Omer is the halfway point between Passover (Pesach) and Shavuot (Shavuos). Passover, of course, is the historical retelling of the Exodus tale, a holiday second in importance only to the High Holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Shavuot marks the day when the Lord God delivered the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai, thus entering into a binding Covenant with the people of Israel. The word "Lag" is the Hebrew number 33, or literally "thirty-third," while Omer is a unit of measure, apparently for a grain offering made at the Temple during this period. The period of the Omer is a period of mourning and solemnity, a tradition instituted in remembrance of a plague that occurred during the time of Rabbi Akiba. The 33rd of Omer represents a break in the plague, and restrictions against weddings, dinner parties and other merriment are lifted. The day is traditionally marked by picnics and other similar family and community gatherings. Bonfires are lit as well.




This past week the ancient Celts helped us to usher in the Summer season with the celebration of the Feast of Beltane (Bealtaine) on May 1st. For the Celts this celebration marked the beginning of the growing season, when crops were planted and livestock were let out to pasture to graze for the season. Mountain Ash and Hawthorn boughs are used to decorate doorways during the festival. As with Lag B'Omer, the lighting of bonfires is also used to mark this festival. In ancient Ireland these were lit on hills of political and cultural importance, such as the Hill of Tara. The word Beltane itself is from the Old Irish, meaning "Bright Fire."

The celebration has survived to the present day, although there is a great deal of variance between how different groups mark the festival. For Celtic Reconstructionists, the most historically accurate practices and rituals associated with this and other ancient Celtic festivals are adhered to. This is truly a challenge, given that the Druids forbade the establishment of a written compilation of their practices and teachings. For neo-Pagan groups such as Wiccans, ancient practices are co-mingled with more contemporary ones.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Celebrating Lag B'Omer-

*Orthodox Union.org

*Akhlah.com

Celebrating Beltane-

*Circle Sanctuary.org

*Celtic Spirituality.org

Nonbelievers: They Walk Among Us! (Or, To Believe or Not to Believe)

"What thoughts do you have for those of us who find faith a difficult endeavor, who weren't raised with it and don't understand it? Are there certain types of people who are naturally predisposed to enjoy faith, and those who are not?"

An excellent pair of questions (submitted in response to a previous post) that underscore a very important point. The most obvious type of conundrum between people of different faith backgrounds is where these diverge on matters of religious belief. However, it puts a new twist on the tension inherent to interfaith relationships when one member of an interfaith couple doesn't have any religious beliefs, doesn't believe in God at all.

The question is, first, what thoughts do I have for those who have difficulty with even arriving at faith itself, understanding the need for it, the benefit of it? I think that is a hard question to answer. For someone who was not raised with any religious beliefs or spiritual practices in childhood, to seek these as an adult becomes a purely elective choice. This in turn begs the question: Why would anyone elect this option in the first place? Are some more predisposed to faith than others? I do not think that this is the case, although there are certainly holy, spiritual people throughout history whose life's work is a testament to a deep and abiding faith far greater than the average person's (e.g., Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Archbishop Oscar Romero). On average, though, I think that we all have the same capacity for faith and for skepticism or outright disbelief. Given that, again, what is it that draws some to believe?

There can be any number of ways that a non-believing adult arrives at the decision to pursue faith in God and the spiritual practices that support this endeavor. However, I would wager that most of them are superficial, incentives that spur the individual in the form of external events and pressures. For example, conforming one's behavior and adopting a religious faith to please a spouse, fiancé/fiancée or girlfriend/boyfriend. Nonbelieving people may sometimes turn to God when they are suddenly caught in extremis: faced with the diagnosis of a fatal, untreatable illness, imminent financial ruin, the dissolution of a years'-long relationship one's dearest and closest companion.

For my money, the most ideal starting place for one's faith journey is within the self. Whatever the source of the stirring that comes from within, it represents the self's own desire to seek out and to know God, or to at least explore the question of God's existence. Those things that the heart wants most, we will pursue with the most energy. We don't have to be told to want the things we want, and seeking to try to know and understand God is one of those things. You either want it or you don't.

Of course, our various faith traditions give us their versions of why it is important to acknowledge and worship God. It's just that, sometimes a religion's dogma gets in the way of our own dharma, in effect becoming a barrier unto itself and also to one's journey to exploring who and what God is. Sometimes religion gives us stuff that is just too hard to swallow or otherwise reconcile with a belief in an all-powerful and benevolent God. I personally think that this is where the skeptics get it right. No matter what faith traditions we come from, there is nothing about faith in God that says we're not allowed to question the teachings of any given religion. At one point Jesus said to the religious authorities of his day, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." In our present day this could also be read to mean that religion was established to serve the needs of people, people are not here to serve the needs of any given religion. The full truth of who or what God is far too vast for any one faith to contain in its teaching or practices. We are "interfaith" because obviously none of our respective traditions has won the "clearly we're right about God" contest. Both our beliefs and our non-beliefs are challenges to each other. But doesn't that make the journey more interesting?

I think that the moral of the story for interfaith homes is the importance of open and honest inquiry. Providing space for your spouse, fiancé/fiancée, girlfriend or boyfriend to talk about his or her faith or his or her lack of faith is an important means of growing closer. The more we understand each other, the more we understand our own selves. The more questions we are asked about our beliefs, the more we are required to take responsibility for and defend these. The more we model openness and respect for each others' beliefs, the more natural we become in making room for these in our homes, and the better role models we will be for any children that may join our families over time.

Sustaining faith in God is a matter of patience, prayer, contemplation, and active engagement in the human community. Establishing faith in God, recognizing and pursuing the desire to do so, is a matter of deep soul-searching, of questioning. Each person initiates his or her own journey of inquiry into the meaning of life. This doesn't mean we all end up in the same place belief-wise. Making room in our homes for each other’s respective search, as well as the space to discuss what we think we've found, helps to ensure that no matter where we end up on our respective journeys, we still travel together. Shalom.

-Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (Links Updated 05/27/07)

Essay on Faith (This I Believe, NPR)

Infidels.org (Atheism Web)

Beliefnet.com (Faiths and Practices)

Kurt Vonnegut: Free-Thinking American (NPR, All Things Considered, April 12, 2007)

15 Things Kurt Vonnegut Said Better Than Anyone Else Ever Has Or Will (The Onion A.V. Club, April 27, 2007)

I Fought the Law and the Law Won (I should have had God on my side)

I love The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is a stitch, and a very clever one at that. I can't get a good laugh when I'm watching the news on any of the network news broadcasts. I barely feel as though I've actually come away with any useful factual information after watching one of their programs. That's never true with The Daily Show, though. I always get a good laugh and still have a pretty clear idea of what kind of tomfoolery our leaders have been up to.

Speaking of leaders, many of those in charge of running the Bush administration have been in the news recently. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is in hot water for either overseeing the firing of eight US Attorneys, or for not having any idea how this process was going (which one?). Former CIA Director George Tenet has a new book out in which he accuses the Bush administration of going to war with Iraq without first giving serious consideration to all other possible options, not to mention possible outcomes. Jon Stewart and other comedians definitely have no shortage of material thanks to this crew.

However, a recent Daily Show report on the number of Regent University Law School alumni employed by the Bush administration somehow struck me as less-than-humorous. (By way of information, Regent University is Pat Robertson's "preeminent Christian university" in Virginia Beach, VA. It was formerly known as the Christian Broadcast Network University School of Law.) I could only bring myself to offer a half-hearted laugh in response to this piece. Now, don't get me wrong, Stewart was his usual hilarious self. I just hope that he'll forgive me if I don't happen to think that it's actually funny when he reports that over 150 Regent Law grads work for the Bush administration. It isn't funny when a presidential administration deliberately and brazenly substitutes hiring criteria based upon professional qualifications for ironclad adherence to a specific set of ideological and religious beliefs.

Case in point: Monica Goodling, a 1999 Regent Law graduate, ascended to a position of serious decision-making authority within the Dept. of Justice before she was scarcely able to distinguish herself as a jurist. No matter: AG Gonzales apparently had so much "faith" in her Regent credentials that he authored (another) secret memo empowering Goodling, Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson, and other similarly inexperienced staff to make highly consequential decisions in the hiring and firing of US Attorneys.

This is all very timely stuff, the juxtaposition of the ever-growing scandal at the Department of Justice, and the President's 2007 Law Day proclamation, in which he states that, "Generations of Americans have served the cause of justice and shaped our legal institutions to ensure that the blessings of liberty extend to every citizen. The men and women of America's legal community have worked to defend the Constitution, protect the innocent, and secure the rights of their fellow citizens."

Amen, Mr. President. This is an important sentiment to espouse on this Law Day, May 1, 2007. However, with all due respect, it becomes very difficult to take pronouncements like this seriously, given the partisan malfeasance and skullduggery taking place at the Dept. of Justice and other federal agencies. How can you square your pronouncement with this behavior?

At this point you might be asking yourself, what in the world does any of this have to do with interfaith issues? I'm glad you asked that question. It is a fact that matters of public policy and personal faith often intersect, for better or for worse, and I can think of at least two reasons why these issues might matter to the interfaith community (and to many other Americans in general):

1. The common thread running through this narrative is fundamentalist Christianity. The triumphalist mindset of this particular sect within Christianity is diametrically opposed to everything that the interfaith movement represents: inclusion, an open-minded attitude toward exploring the teachings of faith traditions other than one's own, the kinship of the world's faith traditions. The most extreme elements of this movement see the United States as a wholly "Christian nation", where God's law (or one interpretation of it) supersedes the Constitution. Never mind the fact that this notion of the American republic is historically suspect at best. Even if this was true, how could such a nation make room for true interfaith dialogue and cooperation? Is this the America a majority of Americans want to live in?

2. It is a safe bet that the majority of us representing the Christian portion of interfaith households do not belong to fundamentalist Christian denominations. As such, we have basically seen Christianity hijacked by extremists who willfully pervert the Gospel message in service of an agenda radically different than the teachings of Jesus Christ. Church-going or not, do we have any obligation to speak up in defense of the Gospel, to defend Christianity from this usurpation by radical political interests?

If any or all of this sounds so extreme as to not be believable, here are some further examples of how intertwined religion, politics and law have become in our society:

* National Day of Prayer Task Force. Evangelical Christians dominate this seemingly ecumenical public event. But on the subject of public prayer, I believe it was Jesus who advised his followers thusly: "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you. In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

* The Annual "Red "Mass" in Washington, DC is a tradition dating back to 1928, but held annually in Washington since 1953. Now that five of the 9 US Supreme Court Justices are Catholic, this event is more star-studded than ever, a very cozy blend of secular and ecclesiastic power brokers.

One of the more reasonable voices in the debate over the proper relationship between church and state is that of nontheistic Americans. In response to the National Day of Prayer, a group of nonbelievers has established a National Day of Reason. This day has been established to "celebrate reason - a concept all Americans can support - and to raise public awareness about the persistent threat to religious liberty posed by government intrusion into the private sphere of worship." It is also a day of civic action, where citizen groups are called to participate in public service activities that benefit all citizens, believer and non-believer alike. Sounds more like an interfaith event to me than the N D of P, if you ask me. What a nice example of bringing together a diverse group of people to serve the shared good of all citizens. Seems much closer to the motto E Pluribus Unum than any notion of the United States as a singularly Christian nation. Shalom.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
("With God on Our Side," by Bob Dylan, Copyright 1963)

-Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (Links Updated 05/27/07)

How Monica Goodling Played the Gender Card and Won (Slate.com, May 25, 2007)

How Pat Robertson's Law School is Changing America (Slate.com, April 7, 2007)

Chris Hedges, former New York Times reporter, author of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America- Interfaith Voices, April 12, 2007

National Association of Evangelicals Office of Governmental Affairs