Menu

Religion Posts

A letter to Evangelical Christianity: the Supreme Court decision isn’t about you, but you can help

Our enemies are sacred, too.
-Richard Rohr

WavesSeawallFrom age 17 through 25 I worked for a cause bigger than my self. At times I worked tirelessly, sometimes going 70 or more days straight without a break, seemingly always on call, available for the greater good.  I lived the Christian life. I lived the idealized Christian life. I worked to save the world, as I thought at the earlier end.

These years were some of the most rewarding periods of my life. I have so many fond memories of those moments and the bonds that were formed with those around me. At times it felt like brothers at arms, fighting a battle with an invisible force. At others we were exhausted travelers, carrying each other forward through another emotional week.

Something, however, felt stifling. It took me years after leaving a position in full time ministry to place that feeling. I just felt compelled to go, an action that caused pain for so many, including myself. I was young, immature, and not aware of the mechanisms that were required to verbalize the feeling that I was pushing against a wall that refused to budge. I would push, but there was nowhere to push.

So I left. For several years after I would duck in and out of services at various denominations. I was burned out on religious music and wrestled with feelings of anger around the language of faith. I kept an awkward toe plunged in while the rest of me was desperate for something that was missing.

Its strange to speak of something missing. I undoubtedly heard hundreds of sermons about how when you become a Christian your life would be complete. Everything in life just suddenly would come together and you would find joy by default. But I was raised this way. I didn’t know anything else. And what I felt wasn’t joy.

The truth is that I led a double life. I was not fully honest and did not know how to reconcile this. I felt an intuition that I needed something else and both denounced the intuition in public while satisfying my curiosity at home. I read and read and read. I read broadly in the sciences and nearly every meaningful text I could find. I asked questions that produced answers that caused anxiety. But yet nearly every word was like water for my curious soul.

But lets back up slightly and bring in the context of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling. I had three friends at my conservative Christian school who I knew were gay. One I flatly asked once why he would choose to be gay. He laughed nervously and got a little emotional. He told me that his father, a pastor, disowned him. His childhood friends would not speak to him. Worst of all, potentially, he hated that he was gay. His eyes got misty as he looked away while the worst treatments undoubtedly played out in his mind’s eye.

I was stunned. Growing up as I did it wouldn’t have occurred to me that this could be the case. I could not imagine having my family and friends turn against me so abruptly and harshly. The pain would be overwhelming.

The word Christian, for all of its potentially positive connotations, has a bad rap. This isn’t because Satan is sneaking around in dark shadows influencing evil men to create propaganda. The people I’ve met who have cringed most when hearing the word do so because they either received disproportionally horrible treatment from self-professed Christians or know a close friend or family member who has. And we aren’t talking someone with a “Jesus is my copilot” bumper sticker cut them off driving. We are talking the kind of hurt and pain described in the story above. For a group using the word love as often as is thrown around in Christian circles, know that it is not felt or experienced to the level that you think outside of the Church. In fact, outside of the select ministries making a big difference in their community – and there are wonderful organizations doing this – many have only had a negative interaction with the church.

I have now spent a decade distanced from the church thinking about the causes of the great separation between culture and Christianity. Part, I believe, is simply world view. It is interesting that psychologically the Bible itself is seen as a closed book. There was a period in which it was written and sometimes rewritten and added to and built upon and then… it just stopped. It was considered finished. No more. And then now you can easily say what is right and what is wrong. You can label easily and, with the right translation and notes, judge with both authority and simplicity.

With yesterday’s announcement I have read so many posts both celebrating and condemning the action. Condemnations have ranged from urging Christians to not give up hope to one who saw a second civil war coming soon. A second civil war! Why are you so afraid? What has the gay community done to you? What is so tremendously evil and terrible about two consenting adults sharing legal identification and partaking in a rich and varied cultural tradition? Despite the commonly held stance, Christianity neither owns nor has invented marriage any more than it has eating or building a house. And what does this condemnation have anything to do with the kind of practice you see presented by Jesus in the Bible?

This was exactly my struggle a decade ago. I could not seem to reconcile the language with the ideology. I was told that God was huge, beyond reason and belief. But then I was told that the nature of what was acceptable and believable was limited, that the entire universe stretching to more galaxies than there are sands in all the oceans of the earth was merely created for awe alone, to be experienced as simply proof. GALAXIES. Each with billions of stars and planets. And all of this was created for something like a 6,000 year span of time in which it popped up on command and then moved on to destruction. And why? Because that’s what the Bible says, and the Bible as it is interpreted says it is the word of God and God can’t lie, ergo thats just the deal so get over it. So this is great for the chosen (“elect”) while being incredibly, awe-inspiringly terrible for pretty much everything else in the universe.

I believe that Christianity has put God in a box and placed that box in a safe that can not be opened. The true expanse and even logical culmination of what is said is juxtaposed with how the belief is expressed:

  • You say God is eternal, but view the lines of history as closed to only that which is expressly written and interpreted correctly; and selectively so at best.
  • You say God is powerful, but judge the world around you, shocked when culture moves in a direction different than your ideals all the while saying that God is in charge. But God clearly can’t be a God of change… expect for that part where Jesus came and kind of threw a big wrench in the prevailing structure of the time. Just that once was ok.
  • You say God is boundless, yet you restrict the realm of the possible to only certain, specific criteria already believed and rationalized by theologians a few hundred years ago.
  • You say God is omniscient, yet go into defensive mode when prayers don’t persuade the Supreme Court or alter the votes of a presidential nominee from an unapproved political party.
  • You say God is is a trinity, unified together. As a Christian, Jesus is inside of you guiding your actions, yet no two sects… whoops, “denominations”, have the same exact theology.

Instead, I propose some basic ideas taken directly from Jesus that might help form the backbone of a new theology that isn’t going to crash into culture like a rogue wave against a seawall or restrict the idea of a God that is bigger than theology could hold.

  1. Love those who make you uncomfortable. This doesn’t mean Ill love them but I don’t have to agree. It isn’t about you, its about those you are told to love. This means do good to them, not criticizing them in social media while telling lies about loving them on Sunday mornings. Open your heart. Your enemies are people too.
  2. Practice compassion. I don’t meant just handing out blankets once a year or collecting food, though those are good thing. Go to the people everyone else in your community despises. When Jesus showed compassion, you got the sense that he felt their suffering deeply. He was like one with their pain.
  3. Stop judging. This is fundamental and absolutely challenging. This is an active role. You are not the judge. Stop it. No wishy-washy qualifiers. No “I read the end of the story and know God’s heart”. You can not say that you are nothing compared to the mind of God and then proceed to say you understand it.
  4. Stop assigning sin. Related to the last one. Its not your job. Do your best to do the right thing and leave the judgement to something greater than yourself.
  5. Walk the narrow gate. The popular vote wasn’t the right one in Jesus time. Why do you think it would be now? Judging from the example of Jesus, shouldn’t mass religious agreement be a good indicator that there’s something missing? We can sing all day about Pharisees or Sadducees, but from the outside, it seems a little too coincidental.
  6. Watch out for wolves and be wise, always on the lookout. Wolves are everywhere. If, say, a political candidate gets teary eyed talking about his or her faith, there’s a chance they know that its the fastest route to your vote. Its not hard to convince a church audience (sorry, but its true and has to be said). You just need to talk the talk, throw out a joke, critique the approved common foe, and BAM: instant credibility. There are many, many people in position of leadership in government and churches with huge holes in their hearts that they will forever be patching with ego. This isn’t everyone. But they are out there and you should be very, very careful about who you trust.
  7. Ask questions. Between the answers are questions. Jesus asked questions and questions were asked of him. These were not validating questions but the ones that you have to walk away and consider for days, weeks, months, or longer. Start with the idea that you do not know and see where this takes you. What impressed the temple priests being chatted up by a young Jesus? They were impressed by his questions. And for the record, “well, thats just what we believe” is not an acceptable answer.
  8. Be careful about predictions. If you must believe in some kind of eschatological, end time scenario, fine. But know this, if you believe the Bible to be true, where it says  that no one will know the day or the hour… yea. Live it then. And beyond the end of the world alone, life is unpredictable. Causality is very, very difficult to ascertain. So saying a decision will bring about the destruction of America is not something even the best minds will be prepared to answer.
  9. Know your place. Consider for a moment that you don’t know the story, that the book in your hand is just a very, very small piece of a greater idea, that God is bigger and wider and more unknowable than theology and minds can comprehend. Consider that you are in fact the tiny speck of life on a small planet in a solar system on one arm of one of billions of galaxies in a universe that is finite yet unbounded. Better yet, know that this is 100% true, because it is. The Bible seen as a unified document today was compiled over thousands of years, a story that was constantly in development during this time. At one point we put a back cover on it and said it was complete. But the story continues, and like many of the values expressed at different times, we are different than 1st century Judea. And that’s ok.
  10. If it doesn’t hurt, if it doesn’t require sacrifice in your heart, you aren’t doing it right.

Let me propose to you that the spiritual union you feel with your spouse is unique to you. The act of marriage, however, is universal, not limited to Christianity and never limited to just one man and one woman – not even in the Bible. Take a quick scan of historical and anthropological records around marriage and you will find a variety of terms and practices such as polygamy, polyandry, arranged, ghost, endogamy, exogamy, hypogamy, and hypergamy. My personal favorite is polyandrous linguistic exogamy where a woman takes more than one husband, but they must speak different native languages to avoid the incest taboo. Why does the will of God have to be so homogenous? Why didn’t God create just one type of rock, one species of animal, and just one planet?

You matter. But how you matter, the legacy you leave, is up to you. Do you follow your impulses and blame the outside world for the trouble or uncomfortability that is upon you? Do you follow the crowd and jump on the bandwagon? Do you look at a single granted right, such as same sex marriage, in a country we find pride in declaring as free, as the culmination of a growing evil? Or, do you, as Jesus suggested, take up your cross, do the thing that is painful and unnatural, and try something different? Why don’t you look for problems on your end, fix your mistakes, and change your community for the better? There are a million real needs in the world that could really use all of our collective help. You can sit and moan on Facebook about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket or get out there and push your values, beliefs, and actions to the breaking point to see what meaning and truth there is to find.

Read More

Name the Colors, Blind the Eye [, a] Zen Dialectic

One:
The title is, I’m told, an old Zen saying. In looking at the specifics of a situation, in labeling the elements of an experiences, we are limiting our understanding rather than deepening our awareness. In looking for the specifics or meaning we are keeping ourselves from really seeing.

This is a concept clearly applicable to nearly every situation in life. When we define an idea or a person we have already limited our perception of what is really before us.

The antithesis of this argument is the old adage, “if it quacks like a duck.” My iPhone has the ability to quack. Is it in fact a duck? Perhaps in a former life.

Labeling is a very helpful ability in evolutionary terms. If something looks like a snake we assume it is a snake and know to stay away.

I think to be slow to judge is in fact quite a value. To really understand someone we have to listen and focus on the message transmitted rather than our intuitive desire to just assume.  We have to be willing to shrug off biases and see the individual for who they are.

Unhappiness is always an option. It is easy to create associations between the aspects of life and create a narrative in which we in fact are the poor, sad benefactor of life’s cruel misery. This is, however, not the reality of the situation.

We are a part of the whole. What is misery for us might in fact be a tremendous improvement for another. Life is chance and we roll the dice every morning. We play well or we simply hope the next morning will bring a new configuration.

Two:
But is it up to us to decide our fate in a situation? What about the time when things are truly terrible? If someone in a ski mask is holding a gun to our head are we to ignore the objects on display and try not to assume that we are being mugged? When is it beneficial to make judgments and when is it systemic of a deficiency? Should we always assume the best in people in situations?

We cannot say for sure how a situation will turn out in the end. We pay attention to the colors so we can survive what life throws at us. We are born to survive and reproduce. We are happy when our needs (both natural and assumed) are met. We are not happy when we lack or experience loss.

Three:
The meaning is what is found by looking at the meaning. We create meaning from our judgments. It is in looking at this statement and considering its “truthiness” that gives me the ability to create meaning from its parts. I might say, “Yes, I understand this statement to mean … as being a figurative analogy regarding the way I should live my life.” But in this I am giving weight or purpose to the color of nuance.

I have to realize that the logical must give way in moments to the understandings that are not definable or describable. If I assume a logical understanding of not the statement but rather the intuitive awareness that is created through its reading, I am missing the true intuition that is available as its purpose. I must cease to define the object, even the meaning as an object, to create space for the purpose of the statement.

I picture a simple example: a man, dressed like a thug serving food to the homeless and crying while watching chick flicks. The image conveys meaning. But in this I have created meaning around the simplicity of the meaning. The man might in fact steal food from the soup kitchen out of spite. But I cannot know this. I have to experience the moment and gauge that the situation might not in fact be what it seems – in both the good and the bad. In this sense it is through the reduction of meaning that the meaning becomes clear: it is the moment that matters, not our interpretation.

Only in defining the experience can I know my relationship to the meaning. I am the one who defines the colors and the color of the statement. I am the one who finds meaning in the statement. I define the statement and loose the meaning in phrasing a sentence about its purpose and understanding. It is the individual who is creating, not the creation itself.

Read More

On Complexity and Simplicity: Biocentrism and the Universe

If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless.

-Aristotle

Biocentrism is a philosophy and cosmology which proposes that life is responsible for the creation of the universe, rather than the universe creating life. At the core of this theory is the  role consciousness plays in the creation of the reality we experience on a day to day basis – mainly, consciousness creates reality.

What does the author of this theory and the quantum physics conjured backbone mean by reality?  Our immediate experiences, the time and space in which we and objects around us move and interact, the actions we take, are developed and created by our consciousness. It is in our minds that the universe takes shape.

I will forgo the extensive arguments and justifications only because I hope to keep this post from becoming too extensive. The field of quantum physics and the strange attributes of this theory are widely documented in both academic and pop-science literature (a list of recommendations will be available at the end of this blog).

What an idea to consider. Could in fact the universe be created in not a single random occurrence or desire of a creator but in the flash of every moment we experience?

Scientists look at light, thanks to Einstein, as the constant in the universe. Not the constant of speed but rather the constant of everything. Light is the substance from which everything is compared. For example, time is not constant by any means. Neither is space. Both are relative to our speed in comparison to light. The faster we travel, our relation to light in both time and space remains the same. If I were to travel at 99% of the speed of light for 10 years and return to earth, I will have aged 10 years while the rest of the planet will have aged 70 years. Not only that, but my size while traveling would shrink to a fraction of my original physical state. I would compress, in both time and space – but my experience would not alter in the least. My experience as an “observer” will remain the same.

This is not the work of mental gymnastics on our parts. It is not that we adapt to conditions. It is that our experience is always relative to light.

Even our experiences on a moment by moment basis are not what they seem. Motion is not what it seems. Motion, the theory goes, is an illusion created by our consciousnesses ability to piece together the moment by moment. And at a quantum level, the very fabric of our bodies and reality are simply appearing and vanishing continually. Like the astute child in the Matrix stated, there simply is no spoon.

My point is that the universe is incredibly complex and our ever changing and evolving ideas regarding the nature and fabric of the universe present a picture of complexity as well as simplicity. Complexity in that, if this theory is in fact “true” (little “t” true as a working theory with tremendous potential to explaining the big picture) it has taken the greatest minds of our species to unravel the concepts we are now understanding. And simplicity in that the idea that there is a consciousness creating the order of our experiences.

Lately I have been thinking quite a bit about my withdrawal from organized religion. My reasons are many; some are quite earned, some preferential.  At the core is an intuitive notion that the way we view the universe is a reflection of the experiences of humanity up to this moment and is simply the beginning of an understanding that could take the lifetime of our species to unravel.

The concept of intuition is a dangerous ideal in our logic-centric culture. We view rational idealism as the end all summation of thought. And religions are as guilty of this as the law.

We are able to create almost any idea out of a text. It is up to the reader to interpret the concept and make sense of what is read. What I see in religion is a reliance on what is “read” (which is never simply read but rather always interpreted) and how this fits into the worldview of the reader, forming a rigid belief that is incapable of viewing external stimulus as of benefit.

What I would like to see in an organized religious system is an openness to the possibilities of the universe and the betterment of all people and things, a flexibility and ceremonial casting off of the rigidity of inflexible ideals, a development of intuitive notions as forming a more central role in belief, and a responsibility to listen to the ideas we all have – knowing that we come to different conclusions and this is something that makes our species great.

If our minds piece together the universe as it unfolds in front of us, the universe we interpret should be expected to have a different contextual association for each of us. But at the core are there beliefs or ideas that are central to all of our experiences that we can “tap into” and connect with in ways that extend our understanding for the benefit of us all?

How would a religious system such as this look and feel? As a born and raised Evangelical Christian, how would or could I combine my past with my present?

WKNPTAWXNNUX

Read More

Speaking Against the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

Let me start out by saying that I hope whoever reads this will understand that this is written with a genuine caring for the friends and family who will read it. I am not in any way pointing out individuals but rather the expressions of the culture as a whole.

I am frankly embarrassed and appalled by the volume of Chick-Fil-A postings I saw yesterday and the message that this sends. I understand, Chick-Fil-A president Cathy is an Evangelical Christian and his small comment (which is part of a larger part the restaurant’s giving has played in the debate) sparked a media frenzy. I also understand that many of you reading this agree wholeheartedly with his belief that one man one woman is the traditional form of marriage and the only way ordained by God.

Here is where I am confused: I am told that yesterday’s Chick-Fil-A rally was about free speech. Was Cathy arrested for his views? Is he in prison? Is Cathy rallying lawyers to come to his aid? Forgive my ignorance, but he is in no way in a position to lose his right to free speech! No one is taking this away from him. I’m sure some would wish they could, but that isn’t even an option.

People who disagree with Cathy have come out in support against his position. People, who in exercising their right to free speech, have publicly disagreed with him. People don’t feel and think that he should have said what he did; just like people (myself included) don’t think a corporation should support a public discussion in one way or another.

Should they have the right to publicly disagree with Cathy? Shouldn’t they have a right to their opinion? Do they have a right to believe that his statements reflect a wrong in society?

Please hear me on this and really think about what I’m saying: Christianity in America has become convinced of its own martyrdom while forgetting that we are the majority! Christians are 76-80% of the population. Christians occupy 86% of congress, 85% of the senate. You can’t, so far, win a presidential election without a confession of Christian beliefs!

But I still hear so much about persecution and rights being taken away. It’s a myth perpetuated through crazy media that wants nothing better than to cause trouble because THAT brings in revenue.

Sure, things change. That is how life works. That is literally how it has always been. 40 years ago we had separate water fountains for people who were black. When this changed it made people uncomfortable (sadly there are still places in the US where this still makes people uncomfortable).

What does this have to do with Chick-Fil-A? Where is the love and compassion that is the foundation of Jesus’ work? Where is the caring about the welfare of people different than you? How are you fulfilling your beliefs by buying a chicken sandwich? Is Cathy’s stance even reflective of the love of Christ that is  so quick to be thrown around as a rallying cry?

This was not an act of love or compassion. Freedom of speech and religion are not on the chopping block. The only rights in this conversation that are up for grabs would be that of option for two consenting adults to choose to unify their lives because they are of the same gender.

Hear me out. Your family is not at risk from an outside source. If gay people get married it will not change your marriage. It will not cheapen your marriage. If the church is really worried about that, why not try to have marriage legally restricted to only Christians? If it is truly a sacrament given by God to you why not keep Muslims or Jews or secular humanists or atheists from participating? And I don’t mean keep them from marrying in a church. I mean why not keep them from marrying legally? This is fear backed up by scripture just as racism and even slavery was many years ago. I see a mentality of division (us vs them), not the actions of a group that was told to care for those who made them uncomfortable.

Even if you do not change your position realize that the message people are hearing is one of hate and bigotry and disdain. If you really want to help and save people, if this is really your goal, realize that something has to change. Supporting a fast food chain and pushing legislation to make the union between two consenting adults illegal is not going to change hearts and minds to your cause, nor is it in any way a fulfillment of Jesus’ call to love your neighbor or even the great commission.

Without doubt to some my writing this will come across as the ramblings of a liberal bias or that of someone trying to justify sin or something. Right now there is little to no room for discussion or disagreement in the Evangelical community on this or many other issues. I have seen the word heretic used for far more minor disagreements than this. I’m just asking that my friends and family who are actively participating in this discussion through their actions and conversations reflect on whether the Christian community is in fact reflecting the love that is so actively preached.

If you do disagree I am not suggesting you say nothing. But just think about the message that you send and whom it is directed. As of right now the message that is received is smug and rude and  self-righteous.

Read More

The Other (/)/(_) Neighbor and the Acceptable Hatred

In a popular video currently circulating online channels, a young boy no more than 3 or 4 years old singing a song ending in the line “ain’t no homo gonna get into heaven”. For many this is a simple statement of fact. It is a reflection of Christian theology and belief. In fact, when the young boy makes this statement the crown in the church explodes with excitement. The entire church, it seems is standing and cheering the boy on. They are standing in solidarity with the boy and praising his words.

But let’s begin to breakdown this statement and the crowd’s reaction into its key components:

First, the boy is much too young to be formulating a stance on the eternal judgement of those who are homosexual. This is a learned and enculturated value. More than this, as the boy surely has no real opinions on such concepts as sexual attraction, the final state of souls in heaven or hell, or what theology as a whole has to say about any of these issues. The boy learned this song from parents who, so believing in the message of this song, taught their child to sing and perform these words, probably knowing the reaction the crowd would have.

Second, the word “homo”, as is used in this statement, is not a simple reduction of the word “homosexual”. Homo is slang and a slur. The word carries a negative connotation but is not fully an overtly offensive statement in the way the “n” word is for blacks. The word still means something other than a statement of fact – it is meant to conjure negative feelings and sentiments.

Third, the song makes a simple theological statement that a homosexual will not get into heaven. This, as I believe most Evangelical denominations  would agree, is contrary to accepted theology, which states that someone is saved despite the sin that is believed to affect the salvation of the individual. For example, a drunkard/alcoholic, if repentant and accepting of the belief espoused by the community, would achieve salvation. Regardless  of whether he is still technically an alcoholic, he is still fine. The same could be said of thieves or any other culturally established group that practices a belief contrary to the accepted values of the community.

But this boy is positing that homosexuals will simply not get into heaven. It is a statement of fact. It is a belief that is contrary to normal groupings of what is seen as sinful behavior and lifestyle choices.

Fourth, the crowd absolutely loves the experience. As a whole they cheer, laugh, and clap. The man on the stage, whom one might believe to be the pastor, grins and laughs as he experiences the lyric.

What is wrong with this picture?

To start, the boy is claiming that homosexuals will not make their way into heaven. In this system, the only other option is hell. When the crowd cheers the boy on with that statement, they are showing their happiness with the idea that someone who is gay will suffer for eternity in a place of unimaginable suffering. When this is stated the crowd is delighted. How does this in anyway align with the values espoused by Jesus? How is one to love their neighbor but rejoice in their eternal damnation and suffering? You’re not.

In psychoanalysis and postcolonial philosophy, the theory of the Other is a means for understanding the differentiation between ourselves and the outside world. The Other is a means for understanding who we are: we are who we are by knowing what we are not. The Other is unknowable, untrustable, and wholly different than ourselves. This separation is what allows us to form trusting bonds within our communities. It is also what allows us to perform horrible acts upon groups that are not who we see as ourselves.

For the Christians in the audience, their world is insular and accepted. They are around those who are like them. Their world is populated with replications of the kind of values and lifestyle choices that they see in themselves. The Other is a monstrosity. The homosexual represents the difference between themselves and who they are not. They see themselves as good and the Other as evil, wicked, detestable.

When Jesus made the statement to love your neighbor as yourself, it is this Other that can be articulated in understanding. The neighbor is the object from whom you keep your distance. The neighbor is not the community member but the difference than you. It is the neighbor who is not your family member in the house next door but rather the individual who’s excessive proximity is an offense to one’s happiness and satisfaction. The neighbor is the pedophile on the block, the family of a convicted felon.

If Christians are charged with loving their neighbor as themselves, could we take the boy’s lyric and flip it on its head to see if the reaction is the same? To take this statement literally one must put themselves in the place of the “homo”: Ain’t no me gonna get in heaven. Would the reaction be the same? Could they in fact celebrate this association in the same way as what was shown in the video?

This cheering is more than simply a sign of solidarity with a Biblical belief, this is the articulation of a cultural prejudice against a minority. The lyric should be offensive to not just homosexuals, but Christians who believe in a similar theology as the group represented in the video. There should be no situation in which a Christian should celebrate the idea that an individual must suffer for all eternity.

I believe the Evangelical Church needs to take a second look at how they treat their neighbor and the fairness and love with which their language, and most importantly, their lifestyle reflects the beliefs and theology they represent. Here I am not even referring to the heaven/hell issue, but simply their response to the challenge to love their neighbors as their selves.

Are we ever permitted to hate what we are not? Not if we are to love that which is not like ourselves.

Read More