I found this on the New York Times website:
“ You might remind your children that, although much harm has been done in the name of religion, much good has, as well. Commemorate the Underground Railroad, Mother Theresa, volunteers who visit prisons and hospitals, all those who sacrifice for peace and justice. Don't let your daughters become cynical because so much good is private and evil is so public.”
— Anne W.
from a blog (?) called This I Believe.
What do you think? Do you think religion gets a bad rap? Do you think it's helpful to speak up more?
Friday, June 12, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Quaker Education 2
I'm here at the beach, thinking about Quaker education and John Woolman.
In "Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes," written in 1746 and published in 1754, Woolman argued that one of the drivers of slavery was parents' overblown affection for their children. The natural desire to give one's children good things--including a comfortable inheritance--helped people rationalize the slave trade.The economics of slavery allowed people to amass fortunes from the profits of the cheap labor of slaves, and people justified this ownership by contending they had to take care of their families.
"If we do not consider these things aright, but ... conceive views of interest separate from the general
good of the great brotherhood, and, in pursuance thereof, treat our
inferiors with rigour, to increase our wealth and gain riches for
our children; What then shall we do when God riseth up?
and when he visiteth, what shall we answer him ? did not he that
made us, make them? and did not one fashion us?"
Earlier in the essay, he writes:
" It appears by experience, that where children are educated in
fulness, ease, and idleness, evil habits are more prevalent than
is common amongst such who are prudently employed in the
necessary affairs of life. If children are not only educated in
the way of so great temptation, but have also the opportunity of
lording it over their fellow-creatures ... how can we expect otherwise than that their
tender minds will be possessed with thoughts too high for them ;
which gaining strength by continuance, will prove like a slow
current, gradually separating them from or keeping from acquaint-
ance with that humility and meekness in which alone lasting hap-
piness can be enjoyed.
Man is born to labour, and experience abundantly showeth,
that it is for our good : but where the powerful lay the burden
on the inferior, without affording a Christian education, and suit-
able opportunity of improving the mind, and a treatment which
we, in their case, should approve, in order that themselves may
live at ease, and fare sumptuously, and lay up riches for their
posterity; this seems to contradict the design of Providence, and,
I doubt not, is sometimes the effect of a perverted mind ; for wdiile
the life of one is made grievous by the rigour of another, it entails
misery on both."
Do we also make idols of our families?
And does this get to the heart of Quaker education?
I have read in the newspaper quotes from administrators at elite Quaker schools distressed about helicopter parents who want their teenage children protected from facing any of life's rigors. Of course, we don't want our children abused by teachers or classmates, but graduating entitled nincompoops who think life will give them special protection might not be the best idea either.
I was an education reporter for a few years, covering a county with a large minority population. That meant witnessing white flight from that school system to nearby school systems with "higher test scores" and "safer schools" and white flight to "independent" schools. Of course, the question frequently arose: shouldn't families support the public schools instead of fleeing? Yes, but having covered public education, I would say that individual families simply can't take on the school system. I've seen many families try valiantly, with mothers (it's usually mothers) heading PTAs, safe school programs, working on academic committees and fundraising drives, and ultimately having to throw up their hands and yank their children from the schools. The schools' problems are a symptom of a deeper social and spiritual malaise that must be addressed first.
I would also say that entering elite public or private schools isn't totally the answer either. What we need, for starters, I would argue, is an "independent" school option that's less elitist than much of the private (and elite) public school strata. Many Catholic schools, I believe, do this well. Some are elite schools, but many are modest schools serving average people. Of course, it could be argued that Catholics--here I speak of Roman Catholics--who comprise a quarter of all Christians in the United States, have vastly greater resources than Quakers. At the same time, Quakers have a history of achievements disproportionate to their numbers.
Another thing we possibly need to rethink is pitting public versus private (they're now called "independent") schools. There are elite public and independent schools and down-to-earth public and independent schools. Public is not necessarily more virtuous than private and vice versa. If we have our children in public schools in an affluent county (as our family did for years) or in a top magnet program in a less affluent county, we could be more elitist than a family sending its children to a modest independent school. I have heard parents say things to their magnet school children such as "You are in a school where the kids really want to learn." What does this teach but that "you are more deserving and kids who don't achieve don't want to." Is either true?
Quaker schools can excel, I believe, by practicing the Quaker testimonies, putting Christ at their center and emphasizing education--and life-- not as a way to get "a competitive advantage" over others, but as training to serve. They could change the world. I dream, but enough independent schools practicing Woolman-like principles could at least gradually change the education system in this country. But how many do? Olney does, yet does that fact mean many parents will reject it for its simplicity?
Conversely, to the extent that Quaker schools appeal to the social or economic elite, does that mean they are not in full compliance with Quaker values? Would Quaker schools that really practiced the Quaker values espoused, say, by John Woolman, appeal to elites? Or would they flee from such schools as too austere? Not taking good enough care of their children?
In "Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes," written in 1746 and published in 1754, Woolman argued that one of the drivers of slavery was parents' overblown affection for their children. The natural desire to give one's children good things--including a comfortable inheritance--helped people rationalize the slave trade.The economics of slavery allowed people to amass fortunes from the profits of the cheap labor of slaves, and people justified this ownership by contending they had to take care of their families.
"If we do not consider these things aright, but ... conceive views of interest separate from the general
good of the great brotherhood, and, in pursuance thereof, treat our
inferiors with rigour, to increase our wealth and gain riches for
our children; What then shall we do when God riseth up?
and when he visiteth, what shall we answer him ? did not he that
made us, make them? and did not one fashion us?"
Earlier in the essay, he writes:
" It appears by experience, that where children are educated in
fulness, ease, and idleness, evil habits are more prevalent than
is common amongst such who are prudently employed in the
necessary affairs of life. If children are not only educated in
the way of so great temptation, but have also the opportunity of
lording it over their fellow-creatures ... how can we expect otherwise than that their
tender minds will be possessed with thoughts too high for them ;
which gaining strength by continuance, will prove like a slow
current, gradually separating them from or keeping from acquaint-
ance with that humility and meekness in which alone lasting hap-
piness can be enjoyed.
Man is born to labour, and experience abundantly showeth,
that it is for our good : but where the powerful lay the burden
on the inferior, without affording a Christian education, and suit-
able opportunity of improving the mind, and a treatment which
we, in their case, should approve, in order that themselves may
live at ease, and fare sumptuously, and lay up riches for their
posterity; this seems to contradict the design of Providence, and,
I doubt not, is sometimes the effect of a perverted mind ; for wdiile
the life of one is made grievous by the rigour of another, it entails
misery on both."
Do we also make idols of our families?
And does this get to the heart of Quaker education?
I have read in the newspaper quotes from administrators at elite Quaker schools distressed about helicopter parents who want their teenage children protected from facing any of life's rigors. Of course, we don't want our children abused by teachers or classmates, but graduating entitled nincompoops who think life will give them special protection might not be the best idea either.
I was an education reporter for a few years, covering a county with a large minority population. That meant witnessing white flight from that school system to nearby school systems with "higher test scores" and "safer schools" and white flight to "independent" schools. Of course, the question frequently arose: shouldn't families support the public schools instead of fleeing? Yes, but having covered public education, I would say that individual families simply can't take on the school system. I've seen many families try valiantly, with mothers (it's usually mothers) heading PTAs, safe school programs, working on academic committees and fundraising drives, and ultimately having to throw up their hands and yank their children from the schools. The schools' problems are a symptom of a deeper social and spiritual malaise that must be addressed first.
I would also say that entering elite public or private schools isn't totally the answer either. What we need, for starters, I would argue, is an "independent" school option that's less elitist than much of the private (and elite) public school strata. Many Catholic schools, I believe, do this well. Some are elite schools, but many are modest schools serving average people. Of course, it could be argued that Catholics--here I speak of Roman Catholics--who comprise a quarter of all Christians in the United States, have vastly greater resources than Quakers. At the same time, Quakers have a history of achievements disproportionate to their numbers.
Another thing we possibly need to rethink is pitting public versus private (they're now called "independent") schools. There are elite public and independent schools and down-to-earth public and independent schools. Public is not necessarily more virtuous than private and vice versa. If we have our children in public schools in an affluent county (as our family did for years) or in a top magnet program in a less affluent county, we could be more elitist than a family sending its children to a modest independent school. I have heard parents say things to their magnet school children such as "You are in a school where the kids really want to learn." What does this teach but that "you are more deserving and kids who don't achieve don't want to." Is either true?
Quaker schools can excel, I believe, by practicing the Quaker testimonies, putting Christ at their center and emphasizing education--and life-- not as a way to get "a competitive advantage" over others, but as training to serve. They could change the world. I dream, but enough independent schools practicing Woolman-like principles could at least gradually change the education system in this country. But how many do? Olney does, yet does that fact mean many parents will reject it for its simplicity?
Conversely, to the extent that Quaker schools appeal to the social or economic elite, does that mean they are not in full compliance with Quaker values? Would Quaker schools that really practiced the Quaker values espoused, say, by John Woolman, appeal to elites? Or would they flee from such schools as too austere? Not taking good enough care of their children?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Peace
Here is the quote from Göring:
"Why, of course, people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war… That is understood. But it is the leaders of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along… The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
There are endless debates about whether leaders “drag the people along” or whether they are puppets of forces which exist outside of themselves. This is the substance of Tolstoy’s theory of history outlined in “War and Peace” — the general’s delusion (it could be Göring’s or Napoleon’s) that he is in control of history when he is but a pawn. [31] History, when all is said and done, is enacted by all of us, not by a select few, and it is to the story of the collective to which I now turn."
From Errol Morrs's series the NYTImes, "Bamboozling Ourselves," part 5. http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/bamboozling-ourselves-part-5/?scp=3&sq=morris&st=cse
Are we "dragged along" or is history "enacted by all of us?" Well, of course it's, by definition, enacted by all of us, but to what extent is the common person initiator rather than responder?
"Why, of course, people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war… That is understood. But it is the leaders of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along… The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
There are endless debates about whether leaders “drag the people along” or whether they are puppets of forces which exist outside of themselves. This is the substance of Tolstoy’s theory of history outlined in “War and Peace” — the general’s delusion (it could be Göring’s or Napoleon’s) that he is in control of history when he is but a pawn. [31] History, when all is said and done, is enacted by all of us, not by a select few, and it is to the story of the collective to which I now turn."
From Errol Morrs's series the NYTImes, "Bamboozling Ourselves," part 5. http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/bamboozling-ourselves-part-5/?scp=3&sq=morris&st=cse
Are we "dragged along" or is history "enacted by all of us?" Well, of course it's, by definition, enacted by all of us, but to what extent is the common person initiator rather than responder?
Monday, June 1, 2009
Quaker education
I'd like to talk about Quaker education. What makes a school Quaker?
I recently heard a prominent Quaker who is not in education mention Quaker schools as the face of Quakerism for the wider world. He cited a school started by non-Quakers in a major city and called a Quaker school. In this city, he said, the school IS the face of Quakerism, because the meeting for worship there is so small. Ironically, the most visible Quaker institution in that city is run by non-Quakers.
This Quaker went on to wonder: If schools, because of their visibility and good reputations, are the chief means of Friends' evangelism should the Quaker community do more to support them? And should Quakers do more to encourage Quaker attendance at these schools, which are largely filled with non-Quakers? And should they do more to encourage Quaker staffing, another area dominated by non-Quakers? (In both cases, the small size of the Friends denomination is a limiting factor.)
I'm an interested and undoubtedly biased party, as for the past year, all three of our teens have attended Olney Friends School in Barnesville and my husband works as technical coordinator (aka compute geek) for Olney. I have been impressed with both the quality of the education and the values of simplicity, integrity and community practiced at the school. I'm also saddened at the struggle it and other small Quaker boarding schools have in attracting students. I believe many Quakers and others are missing out on the opportunity for a rich educational experience.
Reasons I have heard for Quaker children not attending Quaker schools:
1. Desire to support public education. (This was a model my husband and I operated under for years.)
2. Expense. Quaker day schools in the Baltimore/Washington area, from which we come, are prohibitively expensive for the average person, especially if you have more than one or two children.
3. Exclusivity: I have heard of at least one Quaker who was turned down for a Quaker day high school because, although he was a decent student in the public schools, he did not score high enough on the school's entrance exam. I have also heard--without having any personal evidence--that some Quaker schools have lost much of their distinctiveness and become more like other private schools catering to the rich.
4. Stigma attached to boarding school. Helicopter parenting not amenable to sending children away from home.
I've watched my children thrive in a Quaker school environment. What I like about my children's school is that it is NOT dripping with every amenity. Simplicity is emphasized. Students have genuinely small class sizes--4, 5, and 6 students is normal, though some rare classes go as high as 19--and students get a well rounded education that includes raising chickens, collected maple syrup sap and tending to goats as well as a college preparatory curriculum. The school holds meeting for worship daily for 15 minutes at the beginning and end of the day, and in addition, has two longer meetings for worship each week. I've also found during the past year, that, contrary to popular opinion, it's good for many teens to have the independence from parents that a boarding school provides. The school builds service into its life and emphasizes living to serve.
A key factor enriching the life of the school is the tradition. From GymEx, a gymnastics event that goes back to 1910 to self governance committees, the school draws from a deep history of ideas and inspiration.
I would hate to see this or any other rooted Quaker school fail in the current economic climate. I imagine it would be impossible to replicate overnight the more than century long history that makes a school like Olney what it is.
Quakers schools, like other schools, are faced with the tricky prospect of pricing and resort to the common practice of offering a "list" price that is higher than the real price most parents pay. This is done to help underwrite aid to needy students. I wonder what would happen if Quaker schools went back to traditional Quaker business practice and offered a list price that was the real price of education, did not negotiate, and used endowments, scholarships and other donations to support financial need. Honestly, this would take a huge leap of faith as I don't see how that model could work. But it has worked for Quakers in the past.
The Jewish community has a strong tradition of fundraising to support Jewish schools. Should the Quaker community do more to support its schools? Should it do fundraising to be able to offer more scholarships to Quaker students? How important is a Quaker school education to Quaker children and the world at large? Should Quaker schools lower costs by sticking to values rather than going after every amenity? That seems obvious, but how then do we get parents to look past packaging?
Finally, why do you or don't you send your children to Quaker school?
I recently heard a prominent Quaker who is not in education mention Quaker schools as the face of Quakerism for the wider world. He cited a school started by non-Quakers in a major city and called a Quaker school. In this city, he said, the school IS the face of Quakerism, because the meeting for worship there is so small. Ironically, the most visible Quaker institution in that city is run by non-Quakers.
This Quaker went on to wonder: If schools, because of their visibility and good reputations, are the chief means of Friends' evangelism should the Quaker community do more to support them? And should Quakers do more to encourage Quaker attendance at these schools, which are largely filled with non-Quakers? And should they do more to encourage Quaker staffing, another area dominated by non-Quakers? (In both cases, the small size of the Friends denomination is a limiting factor.)
I'm an interested and undoubtedly biased party, as for the past year, all three of our teens have attended Olney Friends School in Barnesville and my husband works as technical coordinator (aka compute geek) for Olney. I have been impressed with both the quality of the education and the values of simplicity, integrity and community practiced at the school. I'm also saddened at the struggle it and other small Quaker boarding schools have in attracting students. I believe many Quakers and others are missing out on the opportunity for a rich educational experience.
Reasons I have heard for Quaker children not attending Quaker schools:
1. Desire to support public education. (This was a model my husband and I operated under for years.)
2. Expense. Quaker day schools in the Baltimore/Washington area, from which we come, are prohibitively expensive for the average person, especially if you have more than one or two children.
3. Exclusivity: I have heard of at least one Quaker who was turned down for a Quaker day high school because, although he was a decent student in the public schools, he did not score high enough on the school's entrance exam. I have also heard--without having any personal evidence--that some Quaker schools have lost much of their distinctiveness and become more like other private schools catering to the rich.
4. Stigma attached to boarding school. Helicopter parenting not amenable to sending children away from home.
I've watched my children thrive in a Quaker school environment. What I like about my children's school is that it is NOT dripping with every amenity. Simplicity is emphasized. Students have genuinely small class sizes--4, 5, and 6 students is normal, though some rare classes go as high as 19--and students get a well rounded education that includes raising chickens, collected maple syrup sap and tending to goats as well as a college preparatory curriculum. The school holds meeting for worship daily for 15 minutes at the beginning and end of the day, and in addition, has two longer meetings for worship each week. I've also found during the past year, that, contrary to popular opinion, it's good for many teens to have the independence from parents that a boarding school provides. The school builds service into its life and emphasizes living to serve.
A key factor enriching the life of the school is the tradition. From GymEx, a gymnastics event that goes back to 1910 to self governance committees, the school draws from a deep history of ideas and inspiration.
I would hate to see this or any other rooted Quaker school fail in the current economic climate. I imagine it would be impossible to replicate overnight the more than century long history that makes a school like Olney what it is.
Quakers schools, like other schools, are faced with the tricky prospect of pricing and resort to the common practice of offering a "list" price that is higher than the real price most parents pay. This is done to help underwrite aid to needy students. I wonder what would happen if Quaker schools went back to traditional Quaker business practice and offered a list price that was the real price of education, did not negotiate, and used endowments, scholarships and other donations to support financial need. Honestly, this would take a huge leap of faith as I don't see how that model could work. But it has worked for Quakers in the past.
The Jewish community has a strong tradition of fundraising to support Jewish schools. Should the Quaker community do more to support its schools? Should it do fundraising to be able to offer more scholarships to Quaker students? How important is a Quaker school education to Quaker children and the world at large? Should Quaker schools lower costs by sticking to values rather than going after every amenity? That seems obvious, but how then do we get parents to look past packaging?
Finally, why do you or don't you send your children to Quaker school?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Reading the Bible in 20 Months: summary
It's time to summarize my impressions of reading the Bible straight through over a 20-month period. My comments will focus on the Old Testament, as that book was a challenge to read. In fact, I discovered that there were parts of the OT I had never read, which surprised me a bit.
First, method. I deliberately read "naively." That may seem like an oxymoron but what I mean is that I tried as much as possible to set aside what I know of Biblical scholarship and historicity in order to read outside of that context and simply meet the immediacy of the text as it is. It's not entirely possible--although I'm aided by the fact that my knowledge of Biblical scholarship is, at best, crude--but clearly some knowledge informed my reading. I'm also not naive enough to think we find information "in" the text alone, but I was attempting, all the same, to do something akin to a New Critical reading in the sense of consciously excluding reliance on secondary source material.
There are several reasons for this. One, as we know, our Biblical scholarship is ever-changing, and how we interpret secondary sources and the light they shed on the Bible is filtered through the lens of our culture and our unconscious prejudices. I have seen too many people in my time over-rely on secondary sources to the point of distorting the Scriptures. For example, I've watched people treat Crossan's conclusions about the "historical Jesus," which he qualifies as very much his own opinions, as truth. More broadly, reading the Jesus Creed blog has brought home to me how until recent years (say, the last 60) often unconscious anti-semitism led Western Biblical scholars to read the New Testament through the lens of Greek thought, missing the obvious connections with Judaism. So I wonder what distortions we "read in" these days when we become overly reliant on the latest in scholarly thought.
Second, the Quakers would not have had the benefits of modern scholarship, and I wanted to read as an early Quaker would have, conscious, of course, of the very different cultural context I live in, but trusting that the leadings of the Holy Spirit are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I wanted this to be more of a lectio divina reading than a "two lines and four pages of footnotes" approach. This feeds into what I alluded to above, which is my sense that many people don't wrestle with the raw material of the Bible enough, but tend to fall back far too quickly on received authority, which dilutes the power of the word itself. I've found that's there a great deal to be mined just by reading the text in an engaged and active way.
I also understood that reading this way--which I call a "flat" way and visualize as a sort of Grandma Moses tableau, introduces its own distortions. So be it. I wanted to be smacked with the immediacy of the text itself.
In the next post, I will get to the text! My question is: How do you read the Bible? How much do you rely on scholarship, what scholars have the most credibility to you and how much do you rely on the text?
First, method. I deliberately read "naively." That may seem like an oxymoron but what I mean is that I tried as much as possible to set aside what I know of Biblical scholarship and historicity in order to read outside of that context and simply meet the immediacy of the text as it is. It's not entirely possible--although I'm aided by the fact that my knowledge of Biblical scholarship is, at best, crude--but clearly some knowledge informed my reading. I'm also not naive enough to think we find information "in" the text alone, but I was attempting, all the same, to do something akin to a New Critical reading in the sense of consciously excluding reliance on secondary source material.
There are several reasons for this. One, as we know, our Biblical scholarship is ever-changing, and how we interpret secondary sources and the light they shed on the Bible is filtered through the lens of our culture and our unconscious prejudices. I have seen too many people in my time over-rely on secondary sources to the point of distorting the Scriptures. For example, I've watched people treat Crossan's conclusions about the "historical Jesus," which he qualifies as very much his own opinions, as truth. More broadly, reading the Jesus Creed blog has brought home to me how until recent years (say, the last 60) often unconscious anti-semitism led Western Biblical scholars to read the New Testament through the lens of Greek thought, missing the obvious connections with Judaism. So I wonder what distortions we "read in" these days when we become overly reliant on the latest in scholarly thought.
Second, the Quakers would not have had the benefits of modern scholarship, and I wanted to read as an early Quaker would have, conscious, of course, of the very different cultural context I live in, but trusting that the leadings of the Holy Spirit are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I wanted this to be more of a lectio divina reading than a "two lines and four pages of footnotes" approach. This feeds into what I alluded to above, which is my sense that many people don't wrestle with the raw material of the Bible enough, but tend to fall back far too quickly on received authority, which dilutes the power of the word itself. I've found that's there a great deal to be mined just by reading the text in an engaged and active way.
I also understood that reading this way--which I call a "flat" way and visualize as a sort of Grandma Moses tableau, introduces its own distortions. So be it. I wanted to be smacked with the immediacy of the text itself.
In the next post, I will get to the text! My question is: How do you read the Bible? How much do you rely on scholarship, what scholars have the most credibility to you and how much do you rely on the text?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Still a Jesus Creeder
I am happy to be staying with Jesus Creed, a wonderful site. Beliefnet has resolved some of the technical issues that made life at that “café” challenging early on. Jesus Creed continues to be a great blog for keeping up with current thinking and scholarship in the Christian world. I’m writing this entry because I happened to google "Jesus Creed" yesterday morning, and to my amazement, fifth on the list was my blog, declaring that I was leaving Jesus Creed.
The lesson is that blogs are forever.( And that people read them.) The current fact, however, is that I am still a loyal Jesus Creeder. Please suggest to your friends to click on this blog entry so that this pronouncement can displace the earlier blog thread. (Disclaimer: I get nothing material from this whatsoever, so click away freely.)
The lesson is that blogs are forever.( And that people read them.) The current fact, however, is that I am still a loyal Jesus Creeder. Please suggest to your friends to click on this blog entry so that this pronouncement can displace the earlier blog thread. (Disclaimer: I get nothing material from this whatsoever, so click away freely.)
Dan Brown: Has he measured the pulse of the times?
The quote below is from Ross Douthat’s op-ed piece, “Dan Brown’s America,” in the New York Times, 5/18/09:
“In the Brownian [this is Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons] worldview, all religions — even Roman Catholicism — have the potential to be wonderful, so long as we can get over the idea that any one of them might be particularly true. It’s a message perfectly tailored for 21st-century America, where the most important religious trend is neither swelling unbelief nor rising fundamentalism, but the emergence of a generalized “religiousness” detached from the claims of any specific faith tradition.”
What do you think? Is Douthat right about how Americans increasingly view religion? Do you see any pitfalls in a “generalized “religiousness” detached from the claims of any specific faith tradition”? (Anyone who knows me knows that I do!) I believe the claim in favor of a generalized faith experience is so that we can all "get along without fighting." Or that all religions are "the different paths up the same mountain?" (Think about that one: doesn't the path you take form who you are and what you are going to see at the top of that mythical mountain we all share?) But surely I am in need of enlightenment. Go to it.
“In the Brownian [this is Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons] worldview, all religions — even Roman Catholicism — have the potential to be wonderful, so long as we can get over the idea that any one of them might be particularly true. It’s a message perfectly tailored for 21st-century America, where the most important religious trend is neither swelling unbelief nor rising fundamentalism, but the emergence of a generalized “religiousness” detached from the claims of any specific faith tradition.”
What do you think? Is Douthat right about how Americans increasingly view religion? Do you see any pitfalls in a “generalized “religiousness” detached from the claims of any specific faith tradition”? (Anyone who knows me knows that I do!) I believe the claim in favor of a generalized faith experience is so that we can all "get along without fighting." Or that all religions are "the different paths up the same mountain?" (Think about that one: doesn't the path you take form who you are and what you are going to see at the top of that mythical mountain we all share?) But surely I am in need of enlightenment. Go to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)