Losing My Religion

Excerpts taken from Chapter 3 of Rabbi Brad Hirshfield’s book ‘You Don’t Have To Be Wrong For Me To Be Right‘.

“Because faith is can be irrational and extreme is no reason to think we should evolve beyond it, any more than we might think that we should - or could - evolve beyond our capacity to love. Love can also be terrible and wonderful, creative and life affirming or soul shattering and suicidal.” (Brad Hirschfield, pg 64).

‘A person can be both a perpetrator and a victim…compassion and understanding don’t rule out justice. If we can’t hold that possibility in our minds, then we are doomed to an endless cycle of people claiming they are victims in order to justify victimizing others”. (Hirschfield, pg 66)

“Turning personal or national suffering into a source for healing is never easy, but unless that remains our top priority, we’ll be left with a world in which everybody has a finely honed sense of how his particular past entitles him to undermine someone else’s future” (Hirschfield, pg 66)

“When I recognize that I am victimizing, I need to realize that I should be a little more careful. When she (wife) recognizes that I have been victimized, she needs to me a little gentler…we assume that because our behavior can be explained, it is acceptable.” (Hirschfield, pg 69)

“Religious communities help you go beyond yourself to care for other people. They help sustain relationships through terrible disappointments. As much as religion inspires acts of terror and viciousness, it still inspires you to go beyond yourself because you believe that there’s something beyond you. What causes such ugly behavior, whether in name of religion or of cults, is fear. Fear is always what’s behind trying to preserve what one perceives as the truth in a coercive, threatening way.” (Hirschfield, pg 77)

“Dawkin’s argument is materialistic, akin to Marx’s statement that religion is the opiate of the masses. All the explaining away along those lines doesn’t account for the power of maintaining an intimate relationship with the source of all wisdom and life, whether that is called God, Allah, Adonai, spirit, or source.” (Hirschfield, pg 78)  

A Tag from ‘Steve Scott‘ - Interesting facts about me 

1) Four jobs I’ve had in my life: (1) Roofer (2 years); (2) Convenience Store Clerk (2 years - 2 places); (3) In bound telemarketer (6 months); (4) Career Centre Coordinator - with an Aboriginal focus (1 year).

2) Three places I’ve lived: (1) Peepeekisis Reserve (12 years); (2) Regina (21 years); (3) Saskatoon (4 months)

3) Four TV Shows I Love to Watch: (1) Heroes (cause I like shows that look like comic books); (2) Sopranos: Get past all the swearing and violence and you have a pretty neat dynamic; (3) Big Brother: I like reality and trying to predict reality; (4) Flintstones: A throwback to a time when that humor on it was normal.

4) Five Blogs I Read Regularly: (1) Pirke Avot (Yael) - Rabbinical writings from times past (great stuff)’ (2) Rabbinical Writings (Yael) - teachings from current and past rabbi’s on the words of God; (3) Confession of a Seminarian - great topics about issues in the faith and a nice community; (4) NorthVU’s - local Regina pastor with a flair for good convo and good writing; (5) Just1 - my brother - who posts rarely for some reason.

5) Four Favorite Foods: (1) Rice Vermicelli w/pork and spring rolls; (2) Kraft Dinner w/ cut up wieners; (3) Rice and beef mixed together (like hamburger helper sort of); (4) Club sandwiches

6) Four Places I’ve Been:  (1) Vancouver, BC; (2) Montana; (3) Calgary, AB; (4) Winnipeg, Manitoba.

7) Four Places I’d Rather Be Right Now: (1) Home (reading and writing); (2) having an ice cream at a local ice cream stand; (3) in a home we are trying to buy; (4) Driving - I always like to be in traffic.  

8 ) Four Things I Look Forward to In This Next Year: (1) New stuff we will buy; (2) Owning a new home (please God - let us have this one?); (3) Reading (books and blogs); (4) Children - we have none right now - but maybe that can change?

9) Four People I Tag To Add This To Their Blog: I will tag no man, woman, beast, or bird of the air.

Taken from Confessions of a Seminarian - Confessions of a Christian

“If I said 2 (beans)+2 (beans)=5 (beans), would you be “knocking” me by stating it is in fact, 4 (beans)?” (Brad)

I am guessing this in reference to these claims:

“your knock on other religions is something Jesus would frown on” (Luke)

“It would be truly unloving of me to deny my fellow sinners a knowledge of the one true God who desires to draw them to Himself” (Mike)

All this in reference to: “The exclusion of “Lord” not only denies the divinity of Jesus, but also denies the exclusivity of Christianity” (Mike)

I think the concept is a lot deeper than a question like ‘does 2+2=5 or 4?’. The question seems to want to deal with math - in which - we find one answer for the question asked. That’s not the same as dealing with teachings/writings - which can have more than 1 definition.

Granted, we are dealing with the salvation calculation (coined by me - lol)…but that’s like saying the way + the truth + the life = Jesus (who also = access to God). That’s a nice calculation per se - but we are dealing a teaching (requires interpretation) and not a math quiz.

The better example to teaching, from the mathematics background, is how math gets used. For example, in building a roof or even the edging of a home - do engineers only pick one single way of incorporating that simple math? Or do they find creative ways for the use of that simple math like rounded edges for the corners of homes or even a roof that is flat instead of cottage/bungalow?

In Engineering, we see that math gets used (which is all the same math principles) in a variety of creative ways to create ‘one home’ or ‘one roof’. Regardless of the differences in the way roofs and homes look - they are all still ‘a roof on a home’ or ‘a wall on a house’ - singular - in a very plural/creative world of houses.

That’s my breakdown of the complexity of exclusivity and using interpretation from a book (John) known for it’s many uses of symbology. ‘I am’ referring to the ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life…’ passage from John 14:6 of course. There is not only ‘one way’ of looking at that passage.

There would be only ‘one way’ if Jesus actually said this ‘I am the one/only way, truth, and life…no man comes to God but (literally and not figuratively) through me’. Now how that would look depends on the viewer - I ain’t never walked ‘through’ someone before so I am not sure of how this would look.

Fact is, Jesus is referring to his teachings - which can be boiled down to Love God and Love your neighbor…and anyone can do that. If he is not referring to his teachings but to himself - then why the need for baptism?

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19)

Isn’t that kind of strange when all is taken care of already? This is apparently said ‘after the ascension’. All is already finished - except for this baptism thing - and the teachings which are referred to in vs. 20 (and baptism being one of the teachings Jesus knew about and approved - via John’s minsitry). Or is it that we can disregard baptism as a Christian ritual - although Jesus teaches us not to? 

Also, the way ‘where’? To ‘heaven’. Or is there a deeper meaning there for the audience to peruse - like let’s suppose Gentiles are reading this…maybe they see ‘the way’ as the movement with it’s symbols and teachings (oddly enough - this term was also the name of the faith from Acts ‘the Way’).  

If Jesus is ‘the way’ then we must be referring to ‘his teachings’ and not just the ‘life’ of the person (which encompasses all 3 parts of the John 14:6 sentence). Life/living is 1/3, seeking (truth mining/study) is 1/3, and acknowledging the path to God is in the teachings (which are not from us) is 1/3.

That’s another way I am looking at that simple math equation which when digested - lets us know math is more fun than we want to admit. I just found like 3 ways of looking at that passage - in a matter of minutes - but that’s literature for you.

Excerpts taken from Rabbi Brad Hirshfield’s book ‘You Don’t Have To Be Wrong For Me To Be Right‘.

3 Principles of Seeking

(1) Moving

“Abraham sets out from his home, from everything he knows, when God calls to him and says ‘Go to the land that I will show you‘. Abraham does not know exactly where he is going. That is the first principal of seeking - to get moving, even if you only have a direction, not a destination” (Hirschfield, pg 53)

“Whenever you think you’ve reached the end, there’s always more up ahead. There’s always more meaning and purpose than we can possibly imagine. The Hebrew word for heaven, olam habah, is usually translated as ‘the world to come’, as if heaven is fixed. But it also translates as ‘the world that is coming’ - a moving, dynamic place where we will face a new set of challenges and opportunities” (Hirschfield, pg 54)

(2) Mutuality

“In Abraham’s journey, when God says He plans to destroy Sodom, Abraham asks, “will you sweep away innocent along with guilty?” In essence, Abraham is telling God that if God surrenders a sense of justice and goodness, then God isn’t God” (Hirschfield, pg 54)

“Arguing with God - rejecting God - can be as sacred as accepting God. There are times when not believing in God is as holy as believing in God with all your heart and soul. One of the lessons of the Sodom story is that Abraham, the bible’s first monotheist, is also the bible’s first atheist.” (Hirschfield, pg 55)

“True seeking encourages arguing and fighting; it embraces testing and dispute, but only on the condition that the dignity of both sides is retained. That is mutuality: whoever appears to be less powerful should be encouraged to exert power and should be protected…We have to be very clear about what our obligations are when we get what we want. That’s what it means to be an ethical, powerful person.” (Hirschfield, pg 57)

(3) Mitzvah - Good Deed/Religious Act

“When God calls out to Abraham, Abraham responds with the Hebrew word hineini - ‘Here I am”. This is mitzvah…We need to feel able to be there for the people we love and the things in which we deeply believe, which we hold sacred.” (Hirschfield, pg 58 )

“We always need to be in both positions, demanding the hineini response from ourselves and demanding for ourselves that other say it to us. When it’s either one or the other, we get into ruts. If you’re always giving it, you get burned out and resentful. When you’re always demanding it without giving it, you’re selfish and immature.” (Hirschfield, pg 58 )

“Mitzvah is a crucial principal in the journey of the seeker. When Abraham says ‘Here I am’, he is saying, ‘I am present, I am fully here, how can I help?‘ It doesn’t matter where we apply that in our lives, to our children or to God, as long as we live that way and have that response to the sacred parts of our lives.” (Hirschfield, pg 58-59)

***Just liked the teaching from Rabbi Hirschfield - great insights into the story of Abraham - which Yael had also re-ittirated to me on her blog (a few of these points anyways). But the reason I post it is because there are lessons to be learned from Abraham about being a person of ‘faith’…and what that means.

I just started reading a new book I bought “You Don’t Have To Be Wrong For Me To Be Right” by Rabbi Brad Hirschfield. Here are some great ‘food for thought’ pieces from the first chapter…I am starting to enjoy this writer. 

“Faith can become something that’s narrow, limiting, an either/or that is rigid and un-yielding…I don’t think that’s true faith. In fact it may be precisely faith’s opposite, an extremity of doubt that boomerangs into strident belief” (Hirschfield, pg 17) 

“Fanatic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt; it is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure” (Richard Niebuhr, pg 17) 

“But I have come to know that the true meaning of faith is not to be found in these sureties or in a single absolute, but in competing absolutes” (Hirschfield, pg 18) 

“People often ask me about the effort it takes to keep kosher and observe the exacting prescriptions of Jewish Law. I don’t think it is difficult. I love doing it, and it never feels oppressive. But here’s where it gets complicated. It’s a choice, but also an obligation. It’s a choice about choicelessness” (Hirschfield, pg 33) 

Anyone care to comment about the quotes? C’mon - let’s start a conversation! I do believe you cannot be wrong…and that’s a great thing these days!

I have thought about this (image of God thing) and now I propose something new to us all - do we want an image of God we can make in our image (ie: God as a human)? That’s the part I am looking at now - and I think the human race has always wanted this…but the fact remains - we serve a God that doesn’t. 

God’s 2nd commandment in Exodus 20 is about this very thing - not making images/idols to serve…does God include Himself in that idea? I mean, if we actually saw God - would He want statues erected in His honor? Or maybe a painting? Now you can see the human vices on this subject…we want an image (even a photo will do - or maybe a potato chip shaped just right). 

Jesus - if he is divine - does that very thing for Christians. We have a ‘human God’. Now we can draw pictures, statues, paintings, coloring books, etc. I do not think God would break commandment number 2 - as with number 1 - if Jesus is divine at all? 

Christians are human also - we want an image of the ‘invisible God’ (I quote Paul here). That’s Jesus! But wait, there is a problem here…now Jesus becomes all things once we know the image. Jesus is a biker for bikers. Jesus is skater for the skaters. By God being ‘imaged’ - we can also play with that image and make it into ‘anything humanly possible’. Just go and see how Jesus is used and held up in many Christian circles - made to represent whatever the church so much as chooses. You give God an image - you also have the rights to that ‘image’.

Is this a breaking of the 2^nd commandment now?

“You shall not make for yourself an idol/graven image, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4)

Is God not into images about God? Can we break this commandment for the ‘One true God’? Jesus as a human God - well - isn’t that the imagery Christianity is using to make God into a whole whack of things? Why can’t we just admit we are looking at commandment #2 here in the 10 Christians use and see - ‘you know what…we have made an image of God…and it’s Jesus’. I do believe these are Jesus quotes also ‘No one has seen God at any time” (John 1:eighteen) and “Not that anyone has seen the Father” (John 6:46).

I am getting to the point of ‘why even have commandments if all we are doing is breaking them’?

I was thinking about this idea of defining the image of God for a few months now…and here is where I am at…banter with me if you will. 

God is not an image we truly can know the looks of. God is One - alone - no one person to compare God to - we have no real frame of reference for the comparison. Humans, well we can compare away - there are billions of us. We can make sculptures and statues of men and women from times past - even when we are not sure their looks (we have something to compare them to). As for God, He is One…with no comparison.

But does God care to be imaged?

Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol (or graven image), or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth“

Is God a burning bush? Is God a still, small voice? Maybe God has human characteristics - as seen in the garden of eden “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Gen 1:26). But you know what…in all of these instances…we are not given God’s image (but pieces of the image). 

I am under the assumption God does not want to be ‘seen’. Maybe this is all for the better - we humans would try to own God in some ‘image-making’ way.

God is mysterious - the unknown - even His name remains mysterious. I like that you know. I don’t want a God that I can define with an image - God is imageless. That’s an important point to make. Once we can define God (physically or whatever) - we cease looking to God - but to the image we have created (even the one in our minds).

Mistake…do not make God into an image…God is not an image…or at least one we can define.

“Again, I think that all of this would much more easily be solved by simply affirming that God’s nature is not that of a supernatural interventionist who has the power to act upon the world from the outside if he/she so decides to, but rather as a creative force that acts through the natural world, through persuasion rather than coercion. Take away the idea of God as omnipotent supernatural interventionist, and the problem of theodicy goes away.” (Mystical Seeker - on ‘Ehrman and Wright’)

The first line I actually agree with altogether - God seems to be in the business of allowance - letting humans decide their own fates. This would be similar to a parent’s actual level of control over a teenager or a young adult - limited but still loving.

However, if I can use the parent comparison some more, even sometimes the parent does break-through and is allowed to help in a decision for the grown, responsible child.

God may not be into intervening per se - just don’t tell that to the Jewish Nation - Exodus is just such an event for them. Now real or not, we can make our judgments about that, the fact is this is a theological viewpoint from within the texts of the bible. But here we have a case of God’s intervention - actually - a lot of the biblical narratives contain intervention (even up to the prophets themselves - who sort of change the interventionist mold).

I see a move in the theological viewpoint from Adam to Noah to Abraham/Moses to Joshua to Judges to Kings and to Prophets. If you check it out - we move farther away from intervention directly from God to intervention through humanity (via the words of God). I think intervention has to be real or why even look into the idea of a God at all (Ehrman has a point here) - intervention is in the texts themselves is even a cornerstone of God’s connection with humanity.

The problem of evil, for me, is answered in the idea of God’s allowance…God is letting humanity shape itself with the very words of God. Even if God spoke directly at one point (Sinai) - there does seem to be a shift from the treatment of humans as children (needing to be led) to adults (using the words now to define the path). God wants us to be responsible with what we were given by God (created for). This is where evil is given a chance - in choice - we can ask Adam about this…maybe even Moses.

For me, God intervenes…on some small level now - but largely through the written teachings. I’d be remiss to say God is no longer in the business of intervention - then God doesn’t have the ability more or less - and that’s may be stripping from the reality of the Creator. The created can think the Creator is made in its image.

Maybe God is leaving the responsibility of intervention also within our hands - the teachings we embrace cover ideas directly linked to this - peace, justice/mercy, love, charity, community, etc. I think the problem is ‘is God letting us be more responsible’? And this may be to the human failure/success - but that’s no better or worse a prospect than Noah’s times.

There is no ‘I’ in interpretation…wait…sorry…there are 2 of them. Which leads to the precise point of this blog - we are part of the interpretation we decide upon. We play a role and to not play that role risks an interpretation that is…well…lacking having real substance. 

The most unpleasant interpretations involve us not having elaborated on the teaching we are reading - there is no ‘I’ in the Nterpretaton (doesn’t look right does it?). Basically, we are removed from the equation and no matter what our experiences - they have no bearing on the meaning of the teachings of God…but someone has to decide what it means don’t they? 

I tend to think, and call me crazy, we are all involved in what we read and the meanings thereof. You cannot remove yourself from the interpretation - actually - you are the interpretation. Say it with me ‘I am the interpretation’ (uh oh - he just used an ‘I am’ statement - I am only speaking in the 1^st person and metaphorically). 

What do I mean - ‘you are the interpretation’? It’s easy - you decide what the words of God mean to you and how they will look when ‘applied’ in your life. God does not decide that for you - God is into delegating this responsibility onto us - we have a mind and the ability to ‘use it’ (some would say ‘you are created this way’). 

‘Blessed are the meek’…you decide how that is going to look and what it is going to mean in your community. Maybe there is no blessing for the meek or maybe there is an over-abundance of it…either way…how are they ‘inheriting the earth’ and ‘how does this look to you’? ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit’…maybe there is room for action towards the under-classed in your community - then again - maybe there is no concern for their plight. You decide this one. 

They may be ‘true’, they may be ‘the way’, and they may even be ‘life’ - but they are also quite ‘useless’ if not applied/used. You don’t build a house by thinking about it - you develop the plans and put in the ‘work’. Not every house is the same either - thank God - and we all elaborate a little bit on how we want the house to look. But we are involved in the meaning of it all (call it our interaction with the fingertips of the Divine). 

May our mansions be based solely on the way we developed our foundations - upon the work we’ve committed to our house standing…this is my simple prayer.

The beginning of the discussion in any of these doctrinal discussions is interpretation - what do the words mean that we are reading. I have noticed this is the beginning of where we all start to go ‘one way or another’ - not that this is ‘bad’ - but this is where we choose our perspectives on what a scripture will say.   

I think we all try to let the scriptures speak for themselves and that is our goal - but we cannot help but bring in some of our own biases - that’s quite normal. The real question is - does our biases hurt the interpretation or help in the ‘mining’ of it? 

EX1: Blessed are the meek (gentle or humble), for they shall inherit the earth (Matt 5:5) 

That sentence is going to depend on how we define the terms within it. Meekness is a word we have to define - what does it mean to us? Its blessing is interesting - ‘shall inherit the earth’ - what does that mean? It’s also antithetical in its emphasis - meek inherit the earth? How so? But that’s the task of the interpreter. 

EX2: But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. (Matt 9:13) 

Interesting teaching, when you consider its ramifications…but this is a teaching attributed to Jesus. Why does the focus on compassion mean more than the focus on sacrifice? What are the ramifications of a sentence like that on our daily lives? On our theologies? On the way we view God? On the way we view others? Meaning does, in a sense, determine your actions. 

This is where we all are having the problem clicking with one another on our various interpretations of scripture and debates into the study of God (theology). This however goes a lot deeper than a few passages - we actually get into whole books, whole works of an author, and comparative frameworks. 

Some see the various books as quite different but working together - some do not see this at all - the books are harmonious. Some see a difference in focus from gospel to gospel - and letter to letter…some think is not the case. So we will never see ‘eye to eye’ on all issues - that’s the obvious part - but that’s not the troubling part. 

The troubling part is only select interpretation is the intent of the author - and someone knows it (to some in-depth extent). We start to discuss ideas about God (or even scriptures themselves) and apply the selected criteria to those passages - so it reads as we need it to. 

EX1: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it” and “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me“. (Matt 7:13 & John 14:6) 

These passages are sometimes held so in common one might think they were written one after the other in the same chapter. However, they are not - they are in different books with different authors (and in different contexts/conversations). Do those passages mean the same thing? Question is - how can they - they look nothing alike. 

EX2: The gospels in their accounts of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus say little to nothing about the meaning of the atonement (fact). Many of the letters refer to this aspect of the death of Jesus. 

Why do the gospels not delve into the meaning of the atonement in more depth - if it is such a huge theological breaking point for the faith? The letters, namely Hebrews, seems to make this such a central theological point that it cannot be ignored (unless one stops reading). Whose emphasis is right? The gospels or the letters? 

The problem we are all facing is breaking down the teachings/scriptures to their core meanings and what is important. So what is the core meaning and how do you arrive at it?