Book Review: Waldman's "Founding Faith"

Just finished Steve Waldman's book Founding Faith, the first book I read all the way through on my new Kindle. (The cool thing about the Kindle is you can mark passages, and then upload what you've chosen to your computer, which means I can excerpt parts without having to type them in. It's the little things.) Waldman is editor-in-chief, president and co-founder of beliefnet.com, and his book is an in-depth exploration of the origins of our concept of separation of church and state.

I found Founding Faith to be fascinating and eye-opening. Like most people, I tended to lump the U.S. founding fathers into one category, as though they all thought alike and wanted the same things. Not so! Like today, there were as many points of view as there were men. More on this below.

But first, I wanted to share a point that was startling to me. Initially, evangelicals strongly supported separation. This was due in part to their own early roots as a minority, and their desire to be free from persecution. However, Waldman also states:

Evangelical opposition to state aid was not driven merely by fear of persecution. Rather, evangelicals believed that Christ demanded this position. Christians were to render unto Caesar what was his—in other words, the religious and political spheres were meant, by Jesus, to be separate.

That would be news to some today!

Founding Faith digs deep into the religious backgrounds and convictions of several key founding fathers: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and—surprise!—Madison. I was unaware of Madison's role in the development of our Constitution. (Next on my list is a biography of his—any suggestions?) Each of these men had distinct ideas on the place of religion in both society and government, and they had to compromise with each other even as we have to today to get anything done. None of them got entirely what they wanted.

Here's Waldman's characterization of the founding fathers as a group:

Each felt religion was extremely important, at a minimum to encourage moral behavior and make the land safe for republican government; each took faith seriously enough to conscientiously seek out a personal path that worked for him; each rejected major aspects of his childhood religion; and none accepted the full bundle of creeds offered by his denomination. In other words, they were spiritual enough to care passionately about religious freedom, but not so dogmatic that they felt duty-bound to promote a particular faith. This combination led them to promote religious freedom rather than religion.

Toward the end of the book, Waldman hypothesizes about how each of these key men would have responded to the issue of having the Ten Commandments in a public location. As Presidents, none of them would have commented on this, since they all believed (because the Fourteenth Amendment was in the future) that states had the right to determine this independently. But then Waldman says this:

But what if they were governors of a state that was considering placing the Ten Commandment plaque? Ah, now that’s different. Each of these five men may have taken a different approach.

Governor Madison, I believe, would have opposed the idea. He would have argued that as much as he liked the Decalogue, government endorsing it would not only harm those who didn’t believe it, but tarnish the Decalogue itself. Governor Jefferson would reassert the right of the state to do this but would also declare that, in the end, it was a bad idea. Adams, or at least Adams of the 1776 mind-set, would likely have gone along with the plaque. He’d view complaints from the evangelicals as a bit picayune and suggest that as long as the court is not actually restricting the religions of others, there’s no harm in publicly declaring allegiance with biblical principles. Washington would likely have agreed with Adams’s approach but fretted that the plaque was citing material from the Bible instead of broader, more unifying principles. He might have suggested a more general statement that God wants us to follow certain universal moral laws. Franklin would have caused the most mischief by agreeing to the posting of the Ten Commandments but only if all of the other religions in the area also got representation. Under Governor Franklin, the courthouse would have become a museum to all religious traditions—passages from the Quran and Bhagavad Gita side by side with the Ten Commandments.

Which just confirms Franklin's position as my favorite founding father.

If you're interested in the church/state issue and want to be better informed than the usual black/white rhetoric about it, I highly recommend this book. If you're like me, it will challenge both your own notions about religion and whatever concept you may have had about the early decision makers.

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• CurrentEvents
  
• Books
  
• History
  

Enough with the Bible?

Time for a monster long post! I posted the below blog entry from another blogger on my Facebook page, and a very interesting discussion ensued.

The Bible & Homosexuality: Enough with the Bible Already

Here's excerpts from discussion:

Guest One wrote:

Hi Laura! I did read the article you posted the link to and I have to say that this writer does not seem to understand that the foundation of Christian faith is the Bible. Like Martin Luther said: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia.

Without the Scriptures, then one can get all kinds of opinions.

Oh yes, one can argue, when who has the correct interpretations, and so forth.

But the point here is this writer is saying, enough with the Bible.

That is the problem. We do not have enough Bible, and too many opinions.

In Genesis 3 Amplified Version of the Bible we find this

1NOW THE serpent was more subtle and crafty than any living creature of the field which the Lord God had made. And he [Satan] said to the woman, Can it really be that God has said, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden?(A)

So we find the serpent still questioning what God said to mankind...and finding out we really don't know what God has commanded!!

Specially with the issue of marriage!

Guest Two wrote:

I didn't read the article, but the headline didn't sit well w/me... glad there are people like [Guest One] willing to speak with respect for the Bible still. People can think they are being 'progressive' when they are being 'open minded' and I do think we do need to be able to be religious and progressive and open minded, but just being open minded doesn't necessarily mean that one is progressive. Just because it forces us to really churn up our beliefs and practices and grapple with interpretations of theology, we shouldn't think an easier path will lead to progress. :-) But, like I said, I didn't read the article, just appreciating [Guest One]'s comments and expressing some things that have been on my own thoughts lately.

Guest Three wrote:

I love how liberals try to characterize Christians as fearful and mean - the very same liberal individuals who are supposed to be so open minded and "collaborative."

Just because someone disagrees with a particular view does not mean they are evil and afraid. In fact, most reasonable thinking human beings don't agree with the idea of undermining the definition of marriage. Prop 8 getting voted down by the most liberal state in America shows how a majority of normal, well-grounded people think. The people who voted down Prop 8 are not evil, ignorant, mis-informed idiots as the media would have you believe.

The longer term implications need to be taken into account, not ignored - i.e. does this action allow for even more definitions of marriage? How does this impact polygamy? Adultery? etc.?

I think there are far-reaching implications that need to be answered before we trample over one of the pillars of a progressive society.

I replied:

Hi you guys! Thanks so much for your comments. I've been thinking about how to respond, you all make such interesting points. I'll do my best to be brief.

[Guest One], you may remember from high school that I'm a Christian Scientist. I'm also a Bible scholar, and I see it as the chart of my life. Of *my* life. Of course, there will be many areas where you and I may disagree as to Bible interpretation—for example, I believe the Adam and Eve story is an allegory and not literal fact—but we could probably have a long fruitful discussion on how we both strive to live the Sermon on the Mount. In fact, I'd love to do that sometime.

What I took from the article I posted is the idea that in making legislative decisions, the Bible is really irrelevant. It shouldn't even come up as part of the discussion.

Curtailing someone else's rights or privileges based on one's own interpretation of the Bible is not appropriate in our freedom-of-religion society. One needs to justify curtailing rights and privileges some other way, perhaps by proving that giving those rights would cause harm. I have yet to hear any justification for curtailing gay marriage, other than a conviction that the Bible condemns it (a position that itself is open to interpretation).

[Guests Two and Three], you and I are share a spiritual tradition that is itself radical. So, it's always interesting to me to have fellow Christian Scientists say that what a majority of people think must be right (as [Guest Three] seemed to be saying). If that were the case, we'd all have been raised going to doctors by compulsion. In this country, however, our rights as a minority have always been protected, and we could choose to live how we wanted, again as long as we weren't harming anyone.

Which brings me to another point in [Guest Three]'s comment. In what way does homosexual marriage undermine marriage? How would it hurt your own marriage, or your own community? The examples I know of homosexuals who have legally married here in Massachusetts are folks who own their own homes, are raising children, are active in their communities, are thriving professionals. In fact, they invest more in the community because they feel like a legitimate part of it now. I've only witnessed good effects myself. Do you have examples where the effects have been negative?

No one to my knowledge is advocating legalizing polygamy or other forms of marriage that involve more than two adults or other beings, like livestock. The issue on the table is legal marriage between two consenting adults of any gender. How will or does that hurt anyone?

Thanks for taking the time to respond to the post and to read this. Have a great weekend!

Guest Three wrote:

Laura - any time one redefines an institution, in this case marriage, it opens the door to more interpretations in the future. If a man can marry a man, why can't a man (or woman) marry several women? Does this "hurt" my personal marriage? Probably not. Does it destroy our society? Perhaps not. But it does undermine one of the pillars of a progressive society and it would behoove us to consider these longer term implications.

I don't think there is value in looking at issues like this through a "this just seems right" lens, and not looking at the bigger picture.

Avoiding big picture/longer-term issues is similar to the situation that happened in the mid-90's when people honestly believed everyone should own a home. The government decided they would back loans to individuals who did not qualify. The short-term reasoning seemed compelling - it just seemed right that everyone should own a home.

Unfortunately, no one considered the longer term implications. As you know, the result was a Real Estate bubble that may destroy our society. Sadly, the very people this initiative was designed to help ended up in a much worse situation - now they can't afford a home AND they have bad credit.

Is there a way to provide rights without redefining marriage? Do we really need to redefine an institution? Do we really need to open the door to all kinds of marriage-types? I believe in the need to legally protect individuals in homosexual relationships, I just don't think redefining marriage is the way to go about it.

I could not find anything in the Bible or Mary Baker Eddy's writtings that would support your views. The chapter on Marriage is pretty specific. As a Bible scholar and CS I'm sure you have more knowledge about these issues. Can you provide any ideas from the Bible or any Christian Science literature that I could consider as I think through this issue?

I'm honestly interested as this seems to be an issue that needs much prayer and compassion. Only Love can bring clarity and happiness for all!! I know these conversations are valuable because it forces one to really think through what they believe... Thanks for posting the article (I read the whole thing)!!

Guest One wrote:

That was a great discussion and I do agree with [Guest Three] and understand his points. Laura, you said you cannot use the Bible as the foundational part for our laws...

Okay, how come in courts people swear on the Bible that whatever they say is the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God?

When leaders are sworn in, like the President of the USA, they use the Bible to swear...

Seems to me using the Bible is appropriate as a reference for laws in the United States.

Congrats on being a Bible Scholar! I am not a scholar, but I do own scholarly Bible softwares, such as Bibleworks, Logos Bible Software for PC, Acccordance for Mac...lately I have been using Logos as I have many interlinear versions and dictionaries and books for it.

I replied:

This is indeed a great discussion! To [Guest One's] point first: Here's an interesting article from a few years ago about other options for swearing in court, although it's not commonplace:

Raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth ... on the Koran?

and here's another page that talks about the swearing in of officials not being a requirement:

From the Separation of Church and State page

To me, the point would be swearing on the book that makes you more likely to tell the truth or fulfill the oath. so I hope more people are encouraged to swear on the book that means the most to them, rather than the one that means the most to me. Why should a Muslim swear on the Bible? Why should Jews have to swear on the Christian text? It wouldn't guarantee anything since they don't value the book that way. They would feel no additional impulse to tell the truth any more than they normally would by swearing that oath. but on the Koran or the Torah? Much more meaningful.

[Guest Two], I hear what you're saying, thanks for articulating it more fully. I agree with you 100% on the credit fiasco! What a mess. The virtue of homeownership is vastly overrated in my opinion. I sold my house and am now happily renting.

Anyway (and this is going to get kind of in-house between Christian Scientists, [Guest One], so forgive us), to our core documentation. I think the thing that convinced me that legal marriage is the only way to go for the homosexual couples is that without it, they're precluded from full compliance with the Church Manual. You may know I'm actively supportive of the CS homosexual community, having been the keynote speaker at their recent conference in Philly.

Getting to know these folks, who have been in committed relationships for ten, twenty, thirty plus years, who have literally no other options for being in a meaningful long-term relationship than living together but still love CS and strive to practice it, just makes my heart break. The Manual says "legal marriage." Once that is fulfilled, by changing the laws of our land, they can be in full compliance with the Manual. How amazing would that be?

MBE was writing her chapter on marriage within the context of her times. Interestingly, I believe early versions of Science and Health state, "Union of male and female constitutes completeness." She *edited* that later to read, "Union of the masculine and feminine qualities constitutes completeness." As her thought evolved in a more spiritual direction, so did her language. Of course, there's no indication whatsoever that she was intending this to speak to homosexuality. She just plain didn't ever write on that subject. But she was clearly in favor of legal marriage, as opposed to the "spiritual" marriage of living together.

I'd just like more of our folks to be able to fulfill that requirement.

I'm no authority on this next bit, I just know what I've read and heard from more knowledgeable sources. But apparently if you read the six passages in the entire Bible that condemn homosexuality (male only), it is possible to see these passages as taking exception with licentious activity, sex by force, self-abuse, etc. The Bible does not address homosexuality, male or female, as within a committed long-term relationship. It just doesn't, any more than it addresses interracial marriage. It does address inter-denominational marriage, i.e., marrying someone outside your faith. But as a society we've left that behind as a problem long ago.

We need to take the Bible teachings and apply them to today, not try to live as they did 2,000 - 5,000 years ago. As a woman, this is particularly meaningful to me. I can cut my hair, speak in church, own property, make decisions for my children. I can chose whom I marry, or even if I marry at all. I could not have done any of these things in biblical times. As I enjoy these freedoms, I want everyone else to as well.

My two cents for today!

Guest Three wrote:

Laura - Good points! Thanks for taking the time to fully articulate your ideas and beliefs. I too, have homosexual friends and I don't look at them any differently than I would anyone else. We've all been dealt different cards and need to try to live a life in accord with Jesus' teachings.

Everyone has things in their experience that do not blend with Jesus' teachings - if not, we'd be walking on water and raising the dead. The idea is not to change the rules, but rather change ourselves... to bring every thought into the obedience of Christ.

I think we all need to be patient and loving with one another and know that people in glass houses should not cast stones. No one is a second class citizen, but there is a requirement for us to give up all for Christ. Personally, I'm not there yet, but the journey has been wonderful because it continues to be so challenging. We need to stretch beyond this human experience to grasp immortality. That's the real point, I think.

I think it's great you can cut your hair the way you like. However, the real question is, "how does this act bring you closer to Christ?" That's the goal - to follow Jesus example. My guess, is he did not spend too much time thinking about how his hair looked (I'm sure you don't either! - I'm just using this as an example).

I think the same could be asked of homosexual marriage - "How is this bringing people closer to Christ?" Marriage between a man and a woman is a temporary measure due to our lack of understanding, our dearth of spirituality. At some point we'll recognize our oneness with Love and marriage will become unnecessary (according to Jesus).

In the mean time, the goal is spiritual growth, more compassion, more kindness, more patience, and freedom from any belief that causes us to break the first commandment. I do believe that much of this is a distraction designed to pull us away from the need to focus on our connection to Christ.

Would love to have anyone else's thoughts as well!

Happy New Year!

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• Bible
  
• CurrentEvents
  
• Character
  
• MaryBakerEddy
  

The reason for the season

This from The Universe (a daily email to which I subscribe):

If it's not yet obvious to you, the real reason for this season is you. A more perfect child of the Universe has never lived. Until now, only a celebration cloaked in myth and mystery could hint at your sublime heritage and divine destiny. You are life's prayer of becoming and its answer. The first light at the dawn of eternity, drawn from the ether, so that the Universe might know its depths, discover its heights, and frolic in endless seas of blessed emotion.

A pioneer into illusion, an adventurer into the unknown, and a lifter of veils. Courageous, heroic and exalted by billions in the unseen.

To give beyond reason. To care beyond hope. To love without limit. To reach, stretch, and dream, in spite of your fears. These are the hallmarks of divinity -- traits of the immortal -- your badges of honor. Wear them with a pride as great as the unspeakable pride we feel for you.

Your light has illuminated darkened paths, your gaze has lifted broken spirits, and already your life has changed the destiny of all who will ever follow.

This is the time of year we celebrate you.
Bowing before Greatness,
The Universe

In short, we all express the Christ, and both witness and embody its appearing.

Happy Christ-celebration!

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• Holidays

Land of the freaky: The power of intention

I don't journal very much anymore, but I will when prodded. A couple days ago, I went into my journal to record a dream I didn't want to forget, and my eyes traveled to the prior entry from some months ago.

I feel so great that I got everything done. I was a fabulous script supervisor on my first feature length film, and I also did all the [book] editing that needed to be done. I earned the most money I ever have editing, while doing film work and earning days for the union. I also lost weight and stayed strong. I worked hard, but well. The director, cinematographer and editor loved me. I was part of a great team. I showed my worth abundantly. And, I've never had so much fun. I also did great taking care of [a family member], and getting him to his new location. Everything fell into place harmoniously, because God loves me and wants me to do well.

I SURVIVED JULY 2008.

After I read this, I thought, Yeah, I really did get all that done in July! There's a lot to be grateful for!

But then I noticed the date of the entry. It was July 8. What? I thought. There was also a parenthetical reminding me what my daughter had advised me to do early in the month when I was feeling totally stressed. She told me to write about the month as though it had already happened.

So I did. And it did.

I had totally forgotten writing that entry, yet it happened just as I'd written it. The power of intention, of consenting mentally to a good outcome, is the first step in achieving it outwardly. We have to be able to conceptualize it before we can achieve it.

What do you want your next month to look like? Write it down as though it's already happened, and then check back in six months. You'll probably be as amazed as I am.

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• Career
  
• Encouragement
  
• SpiritualPractice
  

Book Review: "Do You Know Who Your Children Are?"

As many of you know, I work as an editor of books by self-publishing authors. I've edited dozens over the last year, and some have stayed with me as benchmarks on my spiritual journey. Strangely, often the book I was editing mirrored my actual life in an uncanny way—like a book on childrearing when I was having trouble as a mom, or a book on relationships when I was feeling the fear of connecting. There have been dieting books, historical books, scientific books, inspirational books. It's been such a privilege to see the world through these authors' eyes. Now, many of these books have gone to press, and I'd like to share them with you.

Michelle Starkey's Do You Know Who Your Children Are? came to me at a time when I was wrestling with the point of parenting. Why pour so much into these separate beings who will be flying the coop anyway after eighteen to twenty years? Michelle's book answered that question for me, in a gentle and insightful way.

Michelle explores the different roles children have in our lives: teacher, healer, guide, messenger, spiritual companion, sage and friend. For each of these roles, she gives solid wisdom on how to discern these qualities in our children and accept the gift we've been given.

Here are some excerpts of sections that meant a lot to me:

A major duty that children today seem to be burdened with is helping parents face their not-so-perfect childhoods. There are many painful instances that are brought to the surface when children enter our lives. We may be reminded of the time we got a spanking for breaking the vase, or the time we couldn't go to a friend's party because of our poor report card. On a more painful level, past issues of abuse or neglect may be brought forth. Repressed memories of extremely painful events may begin to be uncovered. Being with a child helps us to relive our own childhoods however joyful or painful we perceive them to have been.

The good news is that both the pain and the joy are gifts. It is never too late to have a happy childhood, as the cliché goes. If we were never able to have a pet, we may get a dog. If we never went to the park, we can now go. It is easier to do these things when we have a child with us, but we can also do them alone—whatever it takes to empower. There are no victims. There are no dysfunctional families. Families function at whatever level their consciousness allows. What may seem not to function for one group of people actually works quite well for another. It is not until those actions are discussed and judged by other humans that they become wrong. Each person came here to experience whatever it is he is experiencing at the moment. There is no right nor wrong, no function nor dysfunction.

I love the idea that no family is dysfunctional. It's such a freeing outlook, letting us all just be, rather than making us try to be something we're not. Every family has issues, and things to work out. But none are dysfunctional. I love knowing that, especially now, during the holidays.

This is a fun analogy, for those of us who believe in mind over matter:

The mind is like a puppy. When you first bring the puppy home it's all over the place. It runs around the house, goes into every forbidden area, chewing things, having accidents and basically destroying everything in its path like a mini tornado. After a while, the puppy grows into a dog and the dog can be trained to refrain from certain activities, control its physical urges and impulses and usually becomes quite manageable. The untrained mind can be as destructive as the untrained dog. The thoughts running rampant through your mind can destroy your inner peace much as a puppy can wreck your home.

And one final thought, which gave me pause:

The past is not a place to dwell. It's okay to visit for reference, but if we live there, we are bound to recreate it.

Do You Know Who Your Children Are? is a great read, full of fun insight and comfort for those of us who sometimes think we're doing it all wrong. It would be a great present for new parents as well—let's reassure them right out of the gate, shall we? While we can all do better at it, ultimately we're bringing the best we have to the job of parenting—and that is enough.

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• Books
  
• Parenting
  
• Inspiration