Why religious discussions usually lead nowhere
The poet Rilke had a brief encounter with psychoanalysis, but proved wary of it. “I am afraid,” he said, “that if my demons leave me, my angels will take flight as well.”
His remark popped into my mind recently under somewhat odd circumstances: at Sunday Mass during the reading of the Gospel. The text that day was taken from Matthew, chapter 13. It’s the story about how a man sowed good wheat seed in his field, but during the night an enemy came and sowed cockle (a weed that happens to look a lot like wheat) among the wheat.
This is discovered, of course, when the seeds sprout. The man’s servants ask him if he wants them to pull the cockle out and he tells them, “No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.” Instead, he says, “Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.”
What brought Rilke to mind, of course, was the bit about not pulling up the cockle until harvest time. It seems to me that Jesus is pointing out how good and bad can become inextricably bound up with one another, and that a premature attempt to separate the one from the other can be, as they say, counterproductive.
Some, of course, might see the cockle as representing sinners cast into the fires of Hell at the Last Judgment. But if they brought to bear on this passage of scripture the same critical imagination and intelligence they would bring to a poem, say, then they would probably understand it differently.
To begin with, one has to remember that Jesus also said that “the Kingdom of God is within you.” It is therefore reasonable to infer that the so-called parables of the Kingdom are principally about psychology. So the field in the parable and what takes place in the field – the growing side-by-side of the wheat and cockle – may be said to represent a process taking place within the human soul. The culmination of that process is the harvest, when the cockle is finally separated from the wheat and the wheat is gathered into the barn.
But it seems to me that one can’t stop there if one wants to get at the point of the parable. For most of the wheat will be discarded as well. Only the grain will be saved, and that will be ground into flour and used to make bread.
Taking into consideration all of the components of this fairly complex metaphorical structure can lead to some arresting provisional conclusions. It would, for example, seem to suggest that the point of my being is not I what I am now, but rather what can be made of the fruit (or grain) that I bear. This is rather different from the conventional religious view, which is that I am in this life on a kind of probation, at the end of which I will be judged to have measured up or not and treated either as the cockle or the wheat.
The older I get, and the more I “think on these things,” as St. Paul suggested we do, the less enthralled I am with the idea of God as a kind of crazed coach just waiting for us to commit some infraction of the rules, so he can toss us off the team.
The problem with most discussions of religion is that many religious people don’t think on these things. They bring little imagination to the beliefs they affirm, content with hand-me-down notions that they never bother to examine closely, let alone question. Worse yet, it is these notions that those who object to religion invariably use as the basis for their objections.
Take, for instance, the idea of God as the creator, not of the universe, but of oneself and of everybody else. If this be true, then right now, as I write these words, God is creating me, thinking me into being, sustaining me in life. Now, anyone who writes or paints or composes music knows how intimate the relation is between oneself and what one creates. But the kind of creative relation that would exist between a creator God and his creation of those made “in his own image” would be one of well-nigh incomprehensible subtlety.
Whether or not there is a God is a question that really ought to be put aside until we grasp the implications of what we mean when we use the term God. I am afraid that many churchgoers never bother to tease out those implications.
That is why religious discussions tend to be framed in terms that are stale to the point of decay. And that is why such discussions usually lead nowhere.
Latest posts by Frank Wilson (Posts)
- An illusion of precision - September 9, 2015
- Watching the passing scene - October 28, 2013
- To see like a child - June 26, 2013
- Riffing and digressions - January 21, 2013
- Life is a parenthesis between one darkness and another - September 13, 2012
Print This Post
This is rather different from the conventional religious view, which is that I am in this life on a kind of probation, at the end of which I will be judged to have measured up or not and treated either as the cockle or the wheat.
I’ve often wondered about this traditional view as well, Mr. Wilson.
I’m not entirely certain that I agree with it, either.
While this may drop off into a bit of Calvinism, I’d like to point out a couple of verses that seem to refudiate this idea of judgement after death.
Take for instance 2 Peter Chap. 3 v. 2. This is the infamous verse where Christians are told that God is not willing for any to perish, but that all may come to repentence.
This is a powerful verse because Christians are told that all of creation comes from an act of God’s will. In Genesis, God willed for there to be light, and poof, there was light. God willed for there to be plants, and poof, there were plants. God willed for there to be animals, and poof, there were animals.
Doesn’t it seem that if God willed for all men to have redeemption that, in holding with past evidence, poof, we’re all redeemed?
This is even more important, from a doctrinal standpoint, when you consider Hebrews Chap 10, where Christians are told that they ” are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (v. 10) and that Jesus “had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever” (v. 12).
Christians are also taught in Titus that they are redeemed “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.” (Chap 3, v. 5)
So we’re painted a picture of 1) A God whose will caused the creation of all that is, 2) A God who does NOT will for any to perish, but that all should be redeemed, 3) A God who performed the act of taking on a human body and offering himself up as the perfect sacrifice, after which no other shall ever be needed, 4) and a system of redeemption where there is nothing a human can do to become saved, since salvation occurs by the infinite grace of God, as expressed through the death of Jesus on the cross.
It seems to me, and my understanding of the issue is horribly limited, that all men are redeemed, no matter what they do, by the will and grace of a God who made all things through an act of that exact same will.
And yet when you ask the typical Christian “What is salvation?”, the usual response follow the model:
“Salvation is when you ______”.
It seems to me that the first 4 words of the typical belief concerning salvation are actually counter to the teachings of Bible itself.
There are a good deal of Atheists who believe that the grand scheme of the universe is somehow purpose-driven. That by observing and taking part in it, a human being is a part of an intricate system and is therefore something very special, even if we are infinitesimally small. Some believe that there is a connection, a sense of belonging because we are part of everything around us.
Many science-rooted people are proud to state that we are made of the same matter as stars. That at our very core we are comprised of the same “stuff,” and that interconnection is more real to them than any scriptures from thousands of years ago. Some even note that after we die, that matter gives life to something else.
Could this be a concept for God?
I consider myself religious, but at the same time the concept of “bearded man in the sky” seems as ludicrous to me as it does to a devout Atheist. That is what disappoints when churchgoers are not urged to think and ponder and toss the idea around. Talk to Atheists, talk to Muslims, talk to Wiccans…by not questioning one’s belief, it only weakens one’s foundation.
But no. We live in a society where people who disagree with us are wrong and will go to Hell. And if they try to hold a discussion with us, if they try to test resolve or try to understand some of the more confusing aspects of our beliefs, we have to throw up a shield of blind faith and hide under a blanket of “God has a plan.”
If anything, thank you, Frank, for telling me that I’m not the only person of faith who actually tries to put some questioning, some thought into what exactly I believe. For a while I was convinced that I must be a de facto Atheist, even though I have faith, because I question the set in stone “meaning” behind stories in a Book that has been revised by human beings.
Perhaps discussions about religion lead nowhere. However, there is an alternative: discussions about the source of a particular religion (i.e., to discuss Judaism, we must discuss the so-called Old Testament; and to discuss Christianity, we must discuss all of the Christian Bible). This approach offers a variety of opportunities for meaningful discussion, depending upon the philosophical, theological, and (even) literary sensibilities of those involved in the discussion; after all, we are forced (through such a methodology) to maintain a focus on the object under discussion: the foundational text. And that, I would argue, leads in many useful directions.
@ Mike: No, please tell me that you did not use the term “refudiate” in a serious response to a serious post. PLEASE don’t let Sarah have that kind of power. Please don’t let that word become part of daily, real-life speech so that it’s added to the dictionary.
Recently, as part of my son’s religious education, we (and each student’s parents) were asked to attend a class. After a few brief readings and prayers, the kids were taken into a separate room while the priest spoke with us.
He lamented the fact that the Catholic church is losing its members more and more regularly. In an effort to retain the church “family,” the clergy and staff are exploring new ways to encourage a feeling of belonging and understanding via discussions of religious topics.
We were asked to divide ourselves into groups, were given a list of questions and told to talk amongst ourselves for a few minutes.
This hardly diffused the formal, often cold, discomfort of the Catholic environment. The exercise was less than successful and did nothing to make us feel any more part of a family than when we arrived that day.
I would like few things better than to get into a discussion about religion and tease out new ideas and perspectives regarding my beliefs. But being thrown into a group of people whom we just met makes it more difficult. And being given discussion questions? At least they could’ve made it a broader topic so we had some wiggle room. I felt like I was back in high school with an incompetent “educator.”
I think there are too many people still, at least in Catholicism, who have been beaten down by the formality, lack of welcome and warmth, and the “dont ask questions, just believe what we say” mentality of the religion. The mass and their beliefs become habit, rote recitation.
People need to change, for sure, and start asking more questions and examining their beliefs and values. But the church (the Catholic one, at least) also needs to start making some major changes as well. They need to change the overall environment and atmosphere surrounding the religion so that people will feel free to question and examine without feeling guilty for it.
Frank, GREAT post. Thanks for sharing!
In the closing lines of your post, I was reminded of something Screwtape said, as he closed his toast to Principal Slubgob … “All said and done, my friends, it will be an ill day for us if what most humans mean by ‘Religion’ ever vanishes from the Earth.”
I’m all for religious discussions … especially those that make me uncomfortable – stretching me, challenging me and challenging my dogma, coaxing me outside the comfort zone I have made for myself.
@ Karen
Too late.
The New Oxford American Dictionary has named it “word of the year” and added it to their ever growing lexicon.
“And, now the Oxford University Press has defined the word refudiate as a verb “used loosely to mean ‘reject’.”
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/palins-refudiate-makes-it-to-oxford-dictionary/711981/
I guess I should weigh in on this, though I won’t do so in any particular order. So first, let me address what R.T. says. While I agree that discussion of the source of a given religion can prove fruitful, I think we have to move to a region anterior to that. The reason the mystical branches of all religions have so much in common — and why mystics often get in trouble with religious authorities — is that those branches are firmly grounded in the primary experience of the transcendent, what Rudolf Otto called the numinous. It is this experience and the nature of the Presence — the Mysterium tremendum — that we must focus on and figure out the implications of. The texts and doctrines and commandments can sometimes obscure God. As Jesus said, the maw was made for man, not the other way around. Which I suppose indicates the extent to which I agree with Mike and Dan. We can’t just say that God loves us and we love God. We have to explore what that mutual love might mean. Who are we loving? Who is loving us. Pondering what it means to love someone who is creating you at the moment you are pondering that is a thought experiment that could well lead to a better understanding of those texts, even to an understanding that some of them are less true than others, even that some are not true at all.
Next, to respond to Karen. Please, lighten up. “Refudiate” — which started as a quickly corrected typo in a Tweet — is going to be with us for a while, just like “misunderestimate.” I rather like both myself. Remember, it was Warren Harding who gave us “normalcy.” It used to be — and for me still is — normality.
As for the Catholic Church, the Mass I was attending when I got the idea that led to this column was a sung Latin Mass — the traditional Tridentine Mass. Amazing how much more power and inspiration comes from an ancient ritual properly done, as opposed to the jerry-built vernacular Mass. It was, however, those who thought the Church needed to adapt who were responsible for that monstrosity. The Church needs to be faithful to its Master. It doesn’t need to adapt to fashion or to our tastes. So if you want a more satisfying environment, try attending a Tridentine Mass. You might be surprised.
Finally, Jeff, you know we’re simpatico on these issues, and don’t allow doctrines or definitions to get in the way of a shared faith.
One other thing, Karen: I went through more than 16 years of Catholic education. I am well aware of how tiresome some clergy and religious can be. I am also aware of how wonderful many of them can be.
If you wish to understand the meaning of the parable, perhaps you should continue reading in Matthew, particularly verses 36-43. Scripture, like law, must be read in pari materia. In your piece above, you take the parable out of context, add additional substance (ie your reference to the wheat and grain being separated), and ascribe an alternate meaning based upon your added substantive material. You are essentially writing your own scripture rather than interpreting what has already been written.
Just my two cents…
@ Mike (and Frank):
This makes me sad. But not for up-tight language reasons. I must admit, I like the word myself. But more because I don’t much care for Ms. Palin and I think she should have as little influence over us as possible.
@Frank: I would like to attend a mass spoken or sung in Latin. I’m sure it would make a huge difference. Although, personally, I find comfort in church despite the fact that so many others regard it as cold and unwelcoming. And I don’t mind formality either; I think we could use a bit more of it in daily life as well as in religion.
I didn’t mean to come off as completely anti-Catholic. I have lots of fond memories of attending Catholic school and have chosen to baptize my kids and raise them in the religion. Mainly I was just trying to defend some of those who don’t acknowledge their doubts and question what they’ve been taught. But I know that is only a fraction of what you’re getting at and, ultimately, those who aren’t asking themselves about their Creator now probably never will, and perhaps don’t deserve defense.
I imagine we could have have one hell of a discussion on this over a beer.
I’ll bet you’re right, Karen. Discussions are always better over a beer! I know C.S. Lewis would agree.
Dear Ladontrelquan Mimbs:
In mentioning the wheat being threshed, I was adding nothing to the text. I was drawing a logical inference from it. Jesus and his auditors, who were country folk, knew perfectly well that you don’t gather the wheat into the barn and just leave it there. Given the centrality of bread to the faith (“I am the bread of life,” etc.), the inference is hardly a stretch. This parable, as I said, is a complex metaphorical structure, and you can’t read a metaphor without exploring its implications. I interpreted the parable on its terms, not mine. And yes, it is true that the passages you cite do support the punishment-of-sinners interpretation. So the angels reap the harvest. But the harvested wheat must still be threshed and winnowed. No comment is made about that. And there is no doubt that there are other texts in the Gospels and elsewhere referring to punishment. They seem to appeal greatly to some people. But they are not easily reconcilable with some other — and I daresay more numerous — texts.It is the Spirit that must guide us when we read Scripture, don’t you think?
@ Karen
I think Ms. Palin should have as little influence over us as any other person. Including all of our currently elected officials.
If I can get by with “refudiate” being the extent of her influence, I’ll consider myself lucky. She could be the next President, you know?
I’m with you, Karen, on all of our elected officials. But I doubt, were Sarah Palin to join them, that she would be the worst among them.Unlike some others I could name, she actually has run some things with reasonable success. I also think she’s smarter than many of her detractors say — and I’m always suspicious of people who call other people dumb, implying that they themselves are not.
“Whether or not there is a God is a question that really ought to be put aside until we grasp the implications of what we mean when we use the term God. I am afraid that many churchgoers never bother to tease out those implications.”
The people who acknowledge that there is no evidence for or reason to believe in gods fully grasp the implications of what people who DO believe in in the supernatural mean when they use the term ” God” . After all, they are very clear on the subject. And so the question can not be put aside.
“Doesn’t it seem that if God willed for all men to have redeemption that, in holding with past evidence, poof, we’re all redeemed?”
Some Christians have tried to make that case. For examples:
Keith DeRose’s “Universalism and the Bible: The Really Good News”:
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm
chapters from Thomas Talbott’s The Inescapable Love of God:
http://www.thomastalbott.com/
articles by Thomas Talbott linked to here:
http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/theol.html
But Gracchus, to “acknowledge that there is no evidence for or reason to believe in gods” would require that you have a clear understanding of what the term God would imply in and of itself, not simply “what people who DO believe in in the supernatural mean when they use the term ‘God’.” To begin with, it is somewhat presumptuous to think you know what other people think, especially when not all people who believe in God have the same notion of God; some, perhaps all, may have a flawed or incorrect view of God. And of course one does have to put aside all argumentation on any subject until one has clearly and distinctly defined and come to an understanding of one’s terms. The point I was making was unexceptionable.
Oh, but Frank i don’t see how it is “presumptuous”of me at all to think I know what others think or mean when they talk about their god, seeing as how ( and this was MY point, which you seem to have missed)they tell me and are quite clear on what they think and mean all the time- not to mention the fact that the reason they think what they think is clearly and readily laid out and accessible to me in the form of documents which they believe to be divinely inspired. The fact that they don’t have ” the same view of god” or may have a “flawed or incorrect view ” of god is proof that their subjective interpretation is just that: an interpretation, of age old human made texts and doctrines without evidence; and so unverifiable and hence as you may say, lead nowhere.
Hi again, Gracchus. Let’s step back a bit. The term God is bandied about by all sorts of people, some who believe and some who don’t. The understanding that most have comes from notions handed down and usually (as you say) derived from ancient texts deemed in some way inspired. But just because a text is routinely interpreted in a given way does not mean that interpretation is correct. Moreover, the understanding of the term God that one might encounter in a Baptist church might well be different from that encountered in a Quaker meeting and both might differ greatly from the view expounded in, say, John Scotus Eriugena’s Periphysion. I see some distinct contradictions in the understanding both believers and nonbelievers have when it comes to using the term God. And the first thing one must do before getting down to discussing anything is to make clear to oneself “what or whom am I talking about” — and do this, as far as one can, as if no one had ever said anything about it. Surely Yahweh, as frequently (though not always) depicted in the OT is a far cry from Heraclitus’ Logos and Lao-tse’s Tao.
In support of Mr. Wilson, I think that even atheists attribute much of the same power to the laws of probability and chance as religious folk do to God.
If chance can, over time, do anything, and if you believe it is responsible for all that is, isn’t chance really your God?