In Search for Spirituality

I was born to a Jewish father and a Christian mother.  I’m the child of two faiths, two cultures.  Growing up Christian, I remember moments of crisis.  I remember as a small child questioning the notion of God and being quite upset about it.  My father said my fears and angst were a sign of my faith – without it, my questions would not bother me.  In short, it is appropriate to question.  Today, I question again. 

I’m a Christian but I find no comfort in the faith, no spirituality.  Going to church today is to be subjected to a cacophony of noise.  There is no silence or time for reflection and contemplation.  Most churches are saddled with bands and speakers, ministers who are over-demonstrative and emotional, standing amidst screens with rolling graphics and words.  Through the din, it is impossible to connect with God.  It is likely churches have never been this way (it is a “service” after all) but certainly, the capacity for spirituality and connection has grown dimmer in recent decades.  In the noise, there is also desperation as the faith seeks to find members from an increasingly distracted generation.  

It has been said and practiced by many, across cultures and faiths, that reflection and quiet contemplation leads to strength.  The more one studies and the more one reflects, the stronger one grows.  In this practice, there is an activism toward empowerment.  However, some of today’s Christians seem to have gone in a different direction.  Many churches do not encourage the bringing of the Bible – the written explanation of the faith.  Some Christians sing overly emotive songs and look pleadingly to the heavens, in some cases with tears in their eyes and hands in the air.  Adherents to this practice might call this a sort of spirituality but it is only a passive attempt to search for it.  In doing so, I’ve always looked upon this as weak.

In my study, I see something strong in my faith, something empowering.  However, the way some practices are done seem to truncate that trait.  I’ve wondered what a church service would look like were we able to actively and spiritually approach our faith.  I’ve imagined a church with two rooms.  One room is for quiet prayer and meditation.  Buddhists say that only this can strengthen and correct the mind.  The other room is for reading and studying, discussion and debate.  In one room, one actively strengthens their faith through a pursuit of connectedness.  In the other room, it is done through a pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.  Unrealistically, it would do away with the “service” as we know it today.

The problem for me is that my type of church doesn't exist.  Historically, Christians have never done this.  Perhaps, my troubles are only my own but I don’t think so.  I would love to feel comfortable in a church however, in recent decades, the outside world and the things from which the church is to help us find solace now rests within the walls.  It says in Romans, Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.  Yet, I cannot find a church that has not been unalterably transformed by the world around them and the so-called necessities of reaching modern audiences.  Instead of showing these Christians the way to connect with God, these churches have conformed to the demands of how the congregants want to worship.  Sadly, it is not worship at all, certainly nothing with spirituality in accompaniment. 

Perhaps, I’m destined to seek my own path.  I don’t mind that and often, I prefer it.  However, it would also be nice to find those of similar disposition. 

The Trait of the Strong

His heart was as great as the world, but there was no room in it to hold the memory of a wrong.
            Ralph Waldo Emerson, Letters and Social Aims, 1876

Forgiveness is a nebulous concept these days.  When I consider the things that have happen around the world and within my country, I wonder how things would be different with the concept of forgiveness.  What would happen to the cultural and societal quagmires if clemency could be employed?  All major religions have a great deal to say on the matter – making it more puzzling why the adherents of these many faiths forget their teachings.  When we despair at the state of the world and our own communities, it is refreshing and healing to look back and remember our teachings.   

In Judaism, one of the most amazing stories of forgiveness lies with the story of Joseph.  It might be known to readers that Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery.  However, Joseph rose to prominence and was later in a position to confront his brothers during a time of famine and he in a position to distribute food.  As mentioned in Genesis, Joseph forgave them saying that God had brought him to his current position, not them.  The Talmud emphasizes this Mitzvah by stating, “Whose iniquities does God tolerate?  A person who forgives the transgressions of another.”   

The most telling story of forgiveness in Christianity is seen when Jesus address the masses during the Sermon on the Mount.  In Matthew, Jesus cautions that before one can go to God in prayer, in their heart, they must first forgive their fellow man.  The Lord’s Prayer is filled with the virtue of a forgiving heart while Jesus, in His last moments on the cross, forgave those who placed him upon it.  In Islam, there are many names of God including the “most Forgiving,” “the most Merciful” and the “most Compassionate.”  The Prophet Muhammad epitomized this trait and its importance when he forgave the leaders of Mecca who had attacked, belittled and railed against him since leaving his hometown seven years prior.  The Quran states, “The reward of the evil is the evil thereof but whosoever forgives and makes amends, his reward is upon Allah.”   

In Hinduism, forgiveness is such an honored trait that Vishnu said only one born with the virtues of the divine forgives.  Gandhi underscored this trait saying only the strong can forgive.  As an element of Karma, it is what defines one’s life and therefore, the lives that are yet to come.  As Hinduism emphasizes this trait, so does Buddhism.  The way one achieves Enlightenment is through something called the Eightfold Path.  A part of this path is “right thoughts.”  A begrudging heart can never achieve the right thought required of all Buddhists and therefore, forgiveness is an essential part to inner peace and spiritual awakening.  One who cannot expunge hatred or resentment carries it with them and is soon enveloped by it. 

As when I wrote about thankfulness a couple of years ago, I do not profess any expertise with the trait of forgiveness.  In some ways, I’m worse because I know what God expects from me but do not always meet His demands.  It is a struggle but one that I strive to overcome each day.  To forgive is to love – it eliminates hate and therefore, eliminates conflict.  Within each faith that I’ve alluded to here are simple guidelines to how to live with our brothers and sisters and ourselves.  If we can do this, imagine the world we can create. 

The Pursuit for Academic Freedom

Since the first teachers, there has been an understanding of how one should do the job.  In particular, the historian was tasked with making sense of what happened – to put it into perspective or better, allow the student to do so once they were given the facts.  Nothing was considered beyond the historian’s purview.  Like Keats, historians stand silent on a hill in Darien making use of everything available to use to better understand our story and our surroundings.  Everything is relevant.  All things, potentially, can matter.  For a historian, the concept of academic freedom is one of the most sacred components of their job and that which attempts to prevent said freedom is antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge.  Unfortunately, in my career and recently in the news, there have been people who have sought to limit that freedom. 

Several years ago, I sought to teach my students about the various world religions but I’m certainly no expert on all faiths.  Therefore, I planned a week whereby five men of faith from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism visited my classroom to explain their faith in a historical context.  The visits were amazing and even other teachers stopped by to listen.  However, rather quickly, some parents called to complain and express concern about non-Christian men of faith teaching their “children.”  Even the word “children” is on purpose to further express fragility and impressionability.  The parents’ use of the word also infantilizes the student.  I stood firm on my choice of lessons but it was not without some meetings and intense conversations.     

Earlier this semester at by brand-spanking new school, I was chastised by a parent over a Supreme Court case about privacy issues because it centered on a case dealing with two gay men arrested for having sex.  My students, who are seniors, are required to research individual cases and present it to the class based on its constitutionality.  The parent was outraged that I was “teaching” her son sodomy.  When told of the complaint, I was in a state of disbelief, wondering if the mother really thought I was teaching sodomy.  The case is not about sodomy per se but rather about privacy rights and the state’s ability to legislate such activity.  The case by the way, should you want to peruse it yourself, is Bowers v. Hardwick (1986).  The Supreme Court must hear a plethora of things and as a teacher of government, sometimes it behooves me to broach controversial subjects as it relates to how we, as a nation, struggle with our freedom, rights and the consequences thereof.   

This past week, a parent balked at an AP Human Geography textbook that asked the student to consider why Palestinians might choose to become suicide bombers in Israel.  The parent, reacting to one sentence that was a part of an entire section on the Israeli/Palestinian relations, created a ruckus saying that the textbook and, by proxy, the class and the teacher were anti-Jewish and teaching children to sympathize with terrorists.  James Rubenstein, the writer of the textbook in question, was forced to speak up and in a missive to Fox News, said that condemnation of an act does not negate the need or correctness of understanding why it happened.  One of the reasons that so much effort went into capturing the Boston bomber alive was to understand what happened, why and how extensive the plot went.  One cannot do that without asking questions to better understand the motives.  It does not justify the act and it certainly does not suggest a moral equivalence between the terrorist act and the response.  Mr. Rubenstein implies that it is better to seek understanding than simply condemning.   

I believe in academic freedom but I and others like me pay for that belief.  I’m a conservative, as even the most casual reader of my blog will note but I’ve been called liberal, communist, subversive and much worse.  I understand the importance of parents to the education process.  However, in my endeavors in my classroom, I’m not going to not cover something because it is controversial.  I’m not going to pick and choose the history that I want to share.  Not to make too fine a point on this but those measures are the tactics of dictators.   

I’m a historian and if I dare claim the tradition set forth by Herodotus, Sima Qian, ibn Khaldun, Tacitus and Leopold von Ranke, I must try and maintain a sense of objectivity.  The parents’ role is found prior to the student entering the classroom.  Parents must discuss and decide what kind of education they want for their student and then find the place that will nurture their child in the way they wish.  Once the parent has made the decision, however, it then becomes the responsibility of the teacher to their craft and to their student how best to proceed.

The Forests for the Trees

Seldom do men make bigger fools of themselves then when they seek to pass judgment upon others.  In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, a multi-faith service was put together to provide comfort and prayers for those suffering.  Within the service, ministers from different Christian denominations as well as clergy from other faiths came together to provide a sympathetic ear and new hope in the face of tragedy.  We turn to faith in the face of the unthinkable for religion is designed to help us view our place within this world.  In this moment, when our similarities shine brighter than our differences, one church condemned one of its ministers for taking part in the service and in the process, brought a shameful condemnation on an otherwise wonderful faith.   

The Lutheran Church is not unfamiliar with controversy or division so, perhaps, it should not be terribly surprising that the church is turning on one another over the actions of a few.  One of the branches of the Lutheran Church is the Missouri Synod, a conservative branch which has shown a strong commitment and allegiance to what they perceive as the core values of its sect.  The president of the Missouri Synod, the Reverend Matthew Harrison, demanded that Reverend Rob Morris apologize for the latter’s role in an interfaith vigil in Newtown.  Rev. Harrison justified his actions by suggesting Rev. Morris’ participation “violated the limits set by Scripture regarding joint worship.”  The Missouri Synod is not new to this as its previous leader, Reverend Gerald Kieschnick, faced blistering condemnation over allowing a pastor to take part in an interfaith prayer vigil at Yankee Stadium in the aftermath of the September 11^th attacks.   

There are many opportunities for a church to express and impress their views and doctrine upon those open to it.  However, common decency would suggest that this was not one of those times.  The fact that some members of the Missouri Synod clergy or congregants favor the actions of Rev. Harrison or feel that Rev. Morris was out of line is beside the point.  One of the most powerful components to the message of Jesus was the idea that we share a common humanity – we are not separated by our nationalities or cultures but rather we are linked together by the idea that we are all children of God.  If that can be assumed by those who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, than what is the objection by Rev. Harrison?  Who does he seek to reject?  Each of us, every day we leave the house, stand as a testimony to our values and our convictions by what we do or what we don’t do.  The Missouri Synod has chosen to take a stance that seems irrational at best and cruel at worst.   

It is unfortunate that Rev. Morris chose to apologize but as a young pastor looking to make his way through the world and considering his career, I can understand it.  However, I can’t help but consider the words of Martin Luther.  In 1521, the German monk was dragged before the Diet of Worms to answer for his views that eventually broke up the Catholic Church with the Protestant Reformation.  When he was asked to recant, Luther declared, “Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scripture or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.”  For a faith that began standing as an opposition to the orthodoxy that had perverted the Roman Church, it is too bad that Rev. Morris could not stand against the calcified dogma that is as outdated as its adherents are misguided.  No one man holds an exclusivity with God as He belongs to all of us, as does His grace.  He serves as a guide through our humanity, the humanity that links us all together.

As Naismith Turns in his Grave...

Last week, I wrote an article on the benefits of hosting exchange students, or teachers.  Indeed, the joys of such an experience will far outweigh any negatives that can be conceived.  However, earlier this week, we took our German guests to a pre-season basketball game.  What I witnessed by the presentation of a modern-day NBA game is likely one of the worst experiences I have ever endured – certainly at a sporting event.  In the two or so hours that comprised the game, I was inundated with a cacophony of noise and nonsense, the likes to which I have seldom been subjected.  Admittedly not a basketball fan, as a sports fan, it is nearly impossible to enjoy a modern basketball game. 

As it was a pre-season game, the amount of people who arrived early to check out the ambiance was few and scattered.  This makes the first annoyance I felt all the more perplexing.  Microphone in hand, a loud local radio personality nearly screamed, wondering if people were ready for some basketball.  Before I had time to overcome the audio assault and compose an answer in my head, he proceeded with a litany of announcements, each of which required more “energy” and “enthusiasm.”    In the minutes leading up to the game, the handful of fans were given a club volume level of the latest popular songs.  Part of me felt that, “surely, the noise will go away during the actual game and I need to endure it a tad bit more.”  Don’t get me wrong, I like new popular music as much as the next person (“I just met you, this is crazy…”).  Yet, at this point, I just wanted to get to the game.

Once the game began, the loud speakers shoe-horned in the latest, greatest club music around every millisecond it could.  During the game, an unceasing amount of demands (pleas?) for participatory chants from the fans prevented the slightest chance of hearing the actual game taking place before me.  While I’m not a fan of the sport, like my good friend and sport aficionado is wont to say, I like to hear the squeaking of the shoes and the calling and maneuvering of the players.  Yet, the production value was relentless.  Topping the shrill of the music was the arena announcer who screamed at us to do this or that.  I work for a living and my whole life, I’ve never met a more demanding, demonstrative and screaming task master.  Every time the sparse crowd attempted to recover and enjoy some peace and quiet, the amps would pulsate with more “requests” to cheer or stomp our feet and the fans, in a near Pavlovian reaction, responded.

Now, I’m more than willing to admit that my reaction is due simply to the fact that I’m getting old.  However, I walked away from the arena slightly deaf, fighting through some ringing in the ears and wondering what it all meant.  What does it mean that people seem to need or find enjoyment in this constant level of stimulation?  What is this the result of?  Computers and various hand held devices have rendered people so incapable to maintain any focus or interest that it has turned basketball into an orgy of sound, chaos and frenetic energy.  The game is not enough and it made me wonder what the fans were valuing. 

Sadly, it is even seen in churches.  My wife and I have visited so many and I get an immediate urge to flee when I see screens over the pulpit.  I have images of PowerPoint presentations on the Gospels or the Prophets, complete with music and video.  Again, I’m drawn to the question, is the core product no longer enough?  I’m often told, and it is not totally without merit, that we must appeal to a new demographic who require new things in the presentation of education, faith or something as unimportant but fun like sports.  However, the church and the school have traditionally served as a warning or barrier to the trends in society.  It might not be a bad idea for sports

I left the arena that evening tired and disturbed.  I worry what the impact is on my students and their ability to learn.  We are turning our people into Pavlov’s warning and with the exception of some of my colleagues, I worry that we are spitting into the wind.  I worry that, ultimately, we will go so far that it will be difficult to reverse the effects.  Why can’t people just agree with me?