Abortion and Hearts: Don't Get Too Excited

Absolutely fail.

Last post I wrote about our stance when talking about abortion. Rallies like March for Life absolutely fail to address the problems that lead to abortion, and, what's more, they prevent honest conversations by creating an "us/them" atmosphere.

We can find a solution to abortion by dropping the pride and recognizing that no one has a solution yet. 

Now that's a hard pill.

Religion is not built for finding new answers. It's no surprise that religious groups and pro-life rallies come together, because for many religion is an answer to life's unanswerable questions. For many, that is the point of faith: to keep those questions of "Why" and "How" out of mind with easy, memorized answers. Thus they embrace biblical literalism, papal infallibility, and the cult of clergy as the places for answers.

That is simply not true, and those crutches get in the way of actually finding answers to difficult questions. Scientists have faced this for hundreds of years, and now we're familiar with the "God of the Gaps" dilemma. When religious authorities make God answer any questions, people who actually find real answers (by humbly, persistently approaching the problem) are made out like they reject God. So instead of an atmosphere that encourages people to answer big questions, we are left with a bunch of wrong answers and no will to answer anything.

That's what the March for Life does for abortion.

I have Faith and Hope that answers exist. Maybe an honest conversation about contraceptives is a start, or fighting rapists around the world. 

But whatever solution we do find, it won't be found in the pages of a Vatican encyclical claiming eternal absolute moral authority. That is pride, and it is not helping. 

Abortion: An Issue with Legs

Yesterday's prayer continues to resonate when I think of abortion.

The question is how to promote life when lives are in competition. From any point of view, we can agree that we have a long way to go before we find anything like a satisfying answer. As Merton says, "In one sense we are always traveling, and traveling as if we did not know where we were going."

"A Prideful Sham"

Think of folks who annoy you from the other side of this issue. I'm thinking of some right now. They annoy me because of their smug certainty that they are right, and their horror that I would oppose them, and that I would deny their perfect logic. That's why they're annoyed at me, too. We're all annoyed at each other because we all know the answer. But we don't. That's a prideful sham. 

We must start from humble ignorance whenever we arise to tackle this issue - and, in so doing, attempt to solve the equally great, contingent problems of health care, family, and violence. There are simply too many questions and no satisfactory answers to any of them right now. So to discuss abortion with pride or certainty is fraud.


Instead, let's take up the more difficult, honest position: humble, hopeful unknowing. You'll recognize that as the position one must take to meditate or to pray, and to be loving. 

The position works because it forces us to stop judging each other, trust each other, and to have hope that we can rise above our challenges every day. "But we already possess Him by grace, and therefore, in that sense, we have arrived and are dwelling in the light."

Sunday Prayer

I'm preparing an extended, dialectical post on abortion for next week. But for now, I am happy to recall Thomas Merton, the twentieth century's answer to monasticism in the West and the East. He remembers that God - our answers, our perfect love and compassion - is both the nearest, most natural thing to us, and the most distant goal of our species. I felt this keenly when debating abortion at Policymic, since a compassionate response seems so natural, but the fiery response pretends to be better. I hope we can all overcome the competitive debate and find the God of compassionate answers.

In one sense we are always traveling, and traveling as if we did not know where we were going.
In another sense we have already arrived.

We cannot arrive at the perfect possession of God in this life, and that is why we are traveling and in darkness. But we already possess Him by grace, and therefore, in that sense, we have arrived and are dwelling in the light.

But oh! How far have I to go to find You in Whom I have already arrived!

(via Dating God)

Happy March for Life!

Ha, just kidding.

Compassion in numbers. 

This response to the March for Life by Daniel Horan, OFM, pretty much summarizes my thoughts on the pro-life/anti-abortion issue.

Abortion is a big problem in our world. It has a long history and a long, legal future.

But more than an problem in itself, it is better known as a symptom of other problems. Abortions are women remedying mistakes. So the compassionate response to abortion is to ask - whats up with these mistakes?

And there are so, so, so many "pro-life" causes - war, starvation, crime, relocation.

Not to mention, the adoption/foster care systems in the US and overseas are critically  underfunded.

So where should we be devoting resources?

Definitely not to overblown, expensive political demonstrations where believers get to preach to the crowd and politicians get to posture like they are willing to spend political capital on this issue because they want Christian votes.

Compassion is the first step to community, it is the first step to Christianity, and it is the only step to Humanity. Are million-man marches on Washington full of compassion? I really don't think so.

IDK

I Don't Know why, ya'll, I'm having a little dry spell. I'm going to watch some chickens for a while then I'll be back on the bus. Until then...

...these are the best two things I've read this week:

Over at Revealer (NYU's blog on religion), a review of Zero Dark Thirty that gets it right: torture is really terrible, and we should not be happy about it:

The War is far, far away, on a screen.  It gives you a headache and is over for at least a little while when you turn off the machines. It is terrible and distant. And most of us have never been made uncomfortable by it for a nanosecond. Until Bigelow.

And from Stanford (via Barking via Elliot) a statistical survey on qualities that lead to Happiness versus Meaning, and the various interactions between those.

Our findings suggest that happiness is mainly about getting what one wants and needs, including from other people or even just by using money. In contrast, meaningfulness was linked to doing things that express and reflect the self, and in particular to doing positive things for others.

Sunday Prayer

Sister Joan Chittister expertly combining real Christian feminism, science, and a spirituality for adults today. I kneel to the master. Seriously, in fifteen minutes you will know what to tell "theology of the body" conservative christian feminists. And, more importantly, you will have words to express the difficulty of being a powerful, spiritual adult.

Gay Anglican Bishops - We Aren't So Fortunate

At Millennial Faith I try to monitor the intersection of religious institutions and the 20-somethings who are rejecting them for being bumbling, dusty, ignorant, arrogant, and irrelevant. Recent news made that negative part of my job very easy.

The Church of England recently ruled that gay men could serve as bishops, as long as the man in question remains celibate. This decision extends to bishops the protection that Anglican leadership had previously approved for their priests and deacons. While it is unquestionably a baby step forward for queer equality in religious institutions, the decision may create more problems than it solves.

"Policing the Bedroom"

Priests and deacons have been allowed “civil partnerships”, defined as a partnership without sexual union, since 2005. The new decision simply confirms that the 2005 consensus includes bishops, in principle.

Because the Church does not consider the partnership to be a marriage, ie, no sex, the Church can remain theologically consistent internally while creating a generous loophole to temporarily calm the many critical groups inside and outside the church. It is simply a legislative bandage that may be a baby step forward for queer rights in religious institutions.

In truth, the Church policy is “don’t ask don’t tell.” Many Anglican clergy cohabitate with their civil partners, and the Church has no intention of policing their bedrooms. While generally well-received in local communities, this unspoken agreement has helped create a conservative fringe in the Church of England who call for stricter enforcement of the Church’s sexual ethics, and a wave of dissidents who have joined the more conservative Roman Catholic Church.

Dr. Jeffery John, openly gay former candidate for Bishop.
His next step - returning to parish or legal action?

Adding insult to injury, the policy has not soothed progressive critics of the Church, inside and out. The current situation policy morally obliges gay pastors feel to lie to their colleagues and communities. Also, the UK civil authorities are not satisfied with the workplace practices of the Church, which has a special tax and code status. The refusal to face the sexual policy adds to the bad reputation garnered by the Church’s rejection of female clergy last month (covered at Policymic), and will likely create tension with a government that fights for gender equality in the workplace and recently approved same-sex marriage.

Worst of all, the decision to allow bishops with civil, celibate partnerships can be used as a convenient excuse to exclude homosexual bishops. A “don’t ask don’t tell” policy only works until the Church asks. Leaders of the Church of England are not likely to elect progressive or controversial bishops, so a gay candidate would be finished as soon as he is found to have a more-than-civil partner.

Bishop Robinson (ret)

The future of the Church of England is unclear. If leadership lean progressive it risks schism and losing thousands of conservative members to other denominations. This is a real threat that was forecast when the American Episcopal church elected the first openly gay bishop Gene Robinson.  If leadership lean conservative it risks severe penalties from the government, as well as growing less relevant to an increasingly secular Britain (plus the necrosis of systematic secrecy and immorality).

No matter what, the cumbersome governance of the Church and the government guarantees a long, expensive, public, and painful fight.

(a version originally published at Policymic)

Wait what? A response to "Spiritual but not Religious"

Spiritual not religious?
I know some old white men who will change your mind.

I thought that the phrase "spiritual but not religious" was funny before I started this project. I would say that folks who were into spirituality did not understand religions, or they had isolated bad experiences. I had a high tolerance for religious disappointment.

Since then I've met a number of amazing folks who embrace their spirituality but feel deeply hurt by religious institutions, or, at the very least, don't see the relevance. And I might be in that number. However...

I still believe that community is an essential spiritual experience.

What does that mean? At the risk of generalizing, I believe that humans like to share. Don't let your two-year-old fool you. When it comes to happiness, thanks, fear, anxiety, grief, or need, we like to experience these things together. 

"Spiritual" is a pretty ambiguous word. If nothing else, when I say that I am a spiritual person, I mean that I have dug deeply into myself and desired to connect with a greater reality. Then I explored the world - using science, religion, internet, music, and pluralism - to find that greater reality.

Spiritual means Hopeful: hopeful that a greater reality exists and that I can connect with it. (I think I do, and it does). 

Spirituality, then, is a way of feeling more connected. I want to connect the higher reality to my own highs and lows, my own thanks and desires, and my grief and regret. I want to connect. 

Be vulnerable to a friend. That is the smallest church.

If you read this blog you know that I think communities, networks of love, are ingrained as the ultimate human good. Naturally, our spiritual hopes should lead us to connecting with each other. We share so many of our deep emotions. Spiritual practices, conversations, and rituals are a healthy, natural way to be vulnerable to each other. 

That should be called church-building - creating spaces that facilitate the sharing of our spirits. 

And that is why I hesitated to throw off religion.  

Understanding "Spiritual but not Religious"

19.6% of Americans report they are “nothing in particular.” 48% of Americans consider themselves “spiritual and religious”. For the first time, less than half of Americans call themselves Protestant.

It’s all over the news: America is a post-religious nation, Millennials are a post-Christian generation, God is dead in 2013. As I responded in a recent series of articles, this is not quite the case. The key to all this news about religion is understanding the “Spiritual but not Religious” phenomenon.

“Religion” has become a dirty word, and the word spiritual is more appealing than the word religious, according to several surveys over the last decade. As Robert Fuller pointed out, in the 20^th century “the word spiritual gradually came to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience, while the word religious came to be connected to the public realm of membership in religious institutions, participation in formal ritual, and adherence to official denominational doctrines.”

And it has been a bad decade for religious institutions.

Sociologist Diana Bass considers this to be a time of fundamental religious upheaval, in part caused by a crash in religious participation that can be traced to five events:

1) September 11 was terrible press for religion, especially for Christian crusaders who blamed American infidelity for the attacks.

2) The Catholic sex abuse scandal, which broke in 2002, revealed systematic institutional cover-up of heinous crimes. One-third of American catholics have actively left the church, meaning about 10% of Americans are ex-catholics. This has led to a general disrespect for all clergy: in 2010, only 53% of Americans said that ministers had high ethical standards, which makes them as bad as post-recession Wall Street bankers.

3) The Protestant conflict over homosexuality boiled over in 2003 with the election of Gene Robinson as an Episcopal bishop. The media storm led to schism and bad reputation for the more mainline protestant churches, which had always been seen as friendly, open and progressive.

4) The political victory of the Religious Right in 2004 came at the expense of alienating everyone who is not comfortable mixing politics and religion, especially millennials. “Christian” and “Religious” were made synonymous with anti-homosexual, judgmental, exclusive, hypocritical, insensitive, and boring. 

5) Finally, the economic recession of 2007 destroyed many charities, including religious organizations that could no longer afford to serve their primary missions.  

What does this all mean?  People with spiritual beliefs will continue to form communities outside of restrictive religious institutions.  Open spiritual networks will likely involve a greater scientific literacy, more pluralism, and less hierarchy. These communities are already thriving online and in cities.

Are you spiritual but not religious?  You’re in good company.

Sunday Prayer

I read this while researching for a recent Policymic article. Diana Butler Bass' book, Christianity after Religion has been one of my favorite sources so far. Before I started the blog, I was one of those who derided the "spirituality but not religion" movement. Now I'm a big believer (and so are lots of others, according to stats).

Spirituality"... is an ancient word, to be sure, but a word that is taking on fresh dimensions of meaning in a fluid and pluralistic religious context. To say that one is "spiritual but not religious" or "spiritual and religious" is often a way of saying "I am dissatisfied with the way things are, and I want to find a new way of connecting with God, my neighbor, and my own life.

Uniting Our Knowledge

Pictured: not a great way to share information

This blog is open access. That means that I share everything, and you can take it if you want and put it in your paper or on your website up on a billboard, if you want. I hope I am personally connected with the information - that a user would cite me or involve me in the conversation. But I don't intend to own or protect the contents of the blog.

Which reminded me of the recent Krista Tippett story on Teilhard de Chardin. Teilhard predicted the network of human knowledge, calling it the Noosphere (based on the Greek word for mind/knowledge). In the radio program, Andrew Revkin (from NYT) talks intelligently about the growing reality of a shared human knowledge.

In a sense, Reddit is the Noosphere. But it's up to us to put good content in, and shape our shared knowledge community. Like a Google founder said.

Although this is a little nicer than Reddit

Even when I was in school, the old ways of storing and sharing information - libraries, academic journals, tape cassettes - seemed terribly out-dated and inefficient. I want to share so much! I want to experience things together! You can't (couldn't) do that in a library.

Today libraries are all about sharing, and I think the internet is bringing that together, too. Wikipedia is way better than the Britannica because you don't just want the info, you want to connect it and share it.

I think that sharing - communication - is fundamental to the very existence and value of information.

So please, read and enjoy my blog, copy it if you want. You can't steal it from me.

What does church Have to do with it?

We've been struggling to find the model for spiritual communities. And here are the stats.

Mark Gray over at CARA (on 1964, one of my favorite blogs ever) tackles the available information on church attendance. Today they used data from a "life diary" study that asked participants to record their days, and pulled statistics relevant to church attendance on Sundays.

This is important because other studies of religious participation always risk polluting the results with bias. People might not be 100% honest when taking surveys about their religion. But the diary study (conducted by Philip Brenner) does not prime participants to respond in any particular way.

What do we learn? 

1) Church attendance in the 2010s has not dropped since the 1980s, but down 12 points from the 1960s (39% to 27% reported attending church on Sunday). Millennials mirror this overall trend.


2) Millennials are NOT significantly less likely to attend church than Gen X, and only slightly less likely than their parents.

3) Millennials who self-identify as Catholics have some unexpected habits, and are more likely to carry a cross than be on twitter.

4) But even self-identified Millennial Catholics are only about 35% likely to attend Mass once a month or more.

Therefore, I conclude that Church attendance simply is not a central part of the Catholic experience. Mark Gray points out that, for most of church history, the average "member" did not attend weekly services. Are we returning to that model?

I myself have struggled to find a church community where I fit in. Sure, I'm harder to please than most, but I know many others (of various denominations) who have active spiritual lives, pray, believe, study, and have spiritual communities entirely outside of Sunday services. Maybe it's something the pastor said, or a regular scheduling conflict. Frankly, a community where you regularly feel nourished along with a hundred other families is a rare gem.

Several participants on PolicyMic commented that church participation was no measure of religious participation, and even less a measure of spiritual activities. I agree.

So what makes a spiritual community that is not stuck in the nostalgia of 1960?

The Point, Again

I started this blog six months ago with the goal of naming the networks that represent the future of religion;  to build a "church", a spiritual community, for people who look forward to the 21st century. To do that I have reflected on current events in the news, and followed arcs regarding major topics (money, compassion, prayer, ritual, etc.).

I have also written for another website, PolicyMic, where a recent article has attracted the warmest active forum that I have ever seen online. I think the overwhelming response to that article shows that folks really do care about the future of religion in the 21st century.

Some people care because they used to belong and are looking for a new spiritual community. Others care because what happens to religion has implications for the world as a whole, and they hope we can shepherd religion away from extremism. Very few care because they organize or are in a traditional religious community.

More than any other group, Millennials (those born after 1982) are not participating in religious organizations: we’re not attending church services and not praying regularly. Does this mean we’re a generation of ruined heathens? No.

The Point:

The goal of this blog has been to re-imagine faith and religious experience in the 21st century, looking forward with the help of statistics, interviews, and current events. I've solidified a few points:

1) Discard the strict hierarchy, insofar as it prevents some from full community.
2) Discard our nostalgia so that we are free to evolve as a group.

3) Discard the judgment that often precedes empathy, comfort, and loving relationships, which are the cornerstones of community.

1) Preserve a sense of ritual, remember to recognize the specialness (sacredness) of particular events in our lives so that we can share that specialness together.
2) Preserve serious study and expertise in theology, including sacred texts. This also means the recognition and promotion of leaders to inspire and guide communities.
3) Preserve prayer, both public and private, because communication is the hallmark of the 21st century, and we can do it together.

Sunday Prayer

I have been enjoying God in Search of Man by Heschel ever since Krista Tippett referenced it. Here's a quote from the first couple of pages, on the relationship between critical philosophy and religion:

The growing inward-ness of man that reaches and curves toward the light of God can hardly be transplanted into the shallowness of mere reflection. Torn out of its medium in human life, it wilts like a rose pressed between the pages of a book.

Religion is, indeed, little more than a desiccated remnant of a once living reality when reduced to terms and definitions, to codes and catechisms. It can only be studied in its natural habitat of faith and piety, in a soul where the divine is within reach of all thoughts.

Is God Dead in 2013?

Is God Dead in 2013? At the very least, organized religions are facing a radical change.

Forget the hype and believe the stats. Religious affiliation is falling, and more Americans than ever label themselves as “nones” (answer surveys as “no affiliation” ). According to the Pew Forum,

The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

Why the change? Many Millennials (ages 18-30)  are eligible for polling for the first time over the last five years and have replaced the older generations, who are dying: 34% of Millennials polled claim “no affiliation,” compared to less than 10% of the Greatest Generation.

Simultaneously, all age groups are decreasingly religious by about 4% since 2007. Also, the vast majority (92%) of “nones” were raised in religious households.

This means that people of all ages are actively rejecting religious affiliation. Interviews and statistical research confirm that top two reasons for rejecting religion are 1) the politicization of religion (churches supporting candidates, polarization over Israel); and distrust of religious institutions (sex and fraud scandals).

These two reasons mix with a third cause for rejecting religion: it is simply not necessary. In previous decades religious organizations were cornerstones of community life. These days Americans find community online (through Policymic, for example) or in other personal settings like coffee shops or civic organizations. As religious participation  became harder and harder to justify due to the scandal and polarizing politics, people of all ages simply find their community elsewhere. For millennials who grew up with the internet, the transition is obvious.

However, a decrease in religious participation does not mean that God is dead. First off, the study of Global Religious Participation (the often-quoted “1 in 6 unaffiliated” study) is deeply skewed because it includes secular countries like North Korea and China.

Also, religious participation tends to increase with age, so us 20-somethings are likely to find religion later in life. The American population will heavily favor those over 65 in the next decade, which has historically been a religious set.

And here’s the key point: non-religious does not mean non-believer. 93% of Americans believe in a God, including 73% of the “nones”. 42% of “nones” pray. Most "nones" (55%) describe themselves as either “religious” or “spiritual but not religious” (which is the fastest growing segment).

So no, God is not dead in 2013, but religious organizations are facing radical changes going forward. It’s about time.

God is Not Dead in 2013, but organized religions are experiencing a radical restructuring.

Forget the hype and believe the stats. Religious affiliation is falling, and more Americans than ever label themselves as “nones” (answer surveys as “no affiliation” ). According to the Pew Forum, “The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.”

Why the change? Many Millennials (ages 18-30)  are eligible for polling for the first time over the last five years and have replaced the older generations, who are dying: 34% of Millennials polled claim “no affiliation,” compared to less than 10% of the Greatest Generation.

Simultaneously, all age groups are decreasingly religious by about 4% since 2007. Also, the vast majority (92%) of “nones” were raised in religious households.

This means that people of all ages are actively rejecting religious affiliation. Interviews and statistical research confirm that top two reasons for rejecting religion are 1) the politicization of religion (churches supporting candidates, polarization over Israel); and distrust of religious institutions (sex and fraud scandals).

These two reasons mix with a third cause for rejecting religion: it is simply not necessary. In previous decades religious organizations were cornerstones of community life. These days Americans find community online (through Policymic, for example) or in other personal settings like coffee shops or civic organizations. As religious participations  became harder and harder to justify due to the scandal and polarizing politics, people of all ages simply find their community elsewhere. For millennials who grew up with the internet, the transition is obvious.

However, a decrease in religious participation does not mean that God is dead. First off, the study of Global Religious Participation (the often-quoted “1 in 6 unaffiliated” study) is deeply skewed because it includes secular countries like North Korea and China.

Also, religious participation tends to increase with age, so us 20-somethings are likely to find religion later in life. The American population will heavily favor those over 65 in the next decade, which has historically been a religious set.

And here’s the key point: non-religious does not mean non-believer. 93% of Americans believe in a God, including73% of the “nones”. 42% of “nones” pray. Most nones (55%) describe themselves as either “religious” or “spiritual but not religious” (which is the fastest growing segment).

So no, God is not dead in 2013, but religious organizations are facing radical changes going forward. It’s about time.

That Debate Again

An article I published on PolicyMic has led to "That Debate": does our experience of time and space count for anything? Can we make changes in the world? Is mortality a human construction?

I used to love this debate. It is a fun and challenging exercise to remember that each of us experience time and space in a totally unique way, and in a way that is not common to other species. Think about how a termite experiences a day, or a meter, compared with our experience.

Now multiply that thought experiment by a million, because our universe has an experience of time and space, too. And many folks have theorized that, at the universal level, time and space folds over itself in a non-linear way, such that our linear experience of time - one event after another, in a stead progress - is a total fiction, a unique, human experience that has no basis in fact. Instead, time may be "an infinite series of frames...that exist simultaneously".

Now I am a fan of thought experiments. I also appreciate placing our lives and experiences in a bigger, universal context.

But I am a pragmatist at heart. I believe that we work to serve the highest good that we know about. We do this making the best decisions we can at every given moment with the best available information. So sure, I want to spread awareness of the limits of science, technology, and social norms so that we have an idea of what the highest good looks like. We experience time in a certain way, and we cannot escape factoring the "slow march of time" into our decisions and experiences.

So when we get into the theory of multidimensional non-linear time and it's implications for our experience of the life cycle, I think we have moved outside of what is possible for humans to experience. I think this is firmly in the realm of headgames, thought experiments, and mental constructs.

It is a fun thought, challenging, but I will not let it get in the way of living my life.