Emo Phillips - The Problem With Fundamentalist Religions

On Christianity

Let me start out by saying, I am a Christian. I consider myself non-denominational. Let me also state that I am barely twenty-three years old in this world, and the church has been around for almost two thousand years. I realize this. I probably don't have the greatest, wisest perspective on things. I certainly know I'm no Biblical scholar, nor do I claim to be. But I have a number of thoughts and observations that I think have some level of validity that I want to expound on, be it for criticism, or simply my own introspection. Hopefully I'll light a few fires of introspection in others as well.

Sometimes, The Mind Is Roundabout 


Often times, my beloved girlfriend challenges me about things. Well, everything really. And that's ok. It's wonderful, really. I may not always think it at the time, but I am blessed to have someone who won't let me sit on my laurels and assume I know all about everything. It's good for me to have my world shaken at times.

Often times she challenges me about my association with Freemasonry, with questions that I can usually answer, though not always, and not always to her satisfaction. This sometimes constant barrage keeps me on my toes, and constantly learning so that I truly know what I am speaking about, not simply assuming for my own convenience.

One of her challenges recently was a venting of frustration that I seemed to be very fired up about Freemasonry, more so than I talk about God or my faith. I didn't have much of an answer at the time, which inevitably led to introspection. I think one of my saving graces, despite all my flaws, is that I must always know the 'Why?' to everything. Yes, I was 'that kid.' So, when I'm challenged with something to which I don't immediately have an answer, it frustrates me to know end. Sometimes to the point of angering me at myself for not reasoning things out sooner. Seriously, it makes me mad.

So I asked myself, why is it that one has me so fired up as of late, yet the other I hardly speak about? While my Christian beliefs have certainly altered while I've been in college, Freemasonry has had nothing to do with it. I don't find one in conflict over the other. I do believe that my relationship with God is ultimately the most important relationship in the world, over any fraternity. So why was one preoccupying my mind? I came to several conclusions.

1. Freemasonry is the 'new' thing in my life. This is certainly a contributing factor. Just like on Christmas morning when you unwrap that new novel, firetruck, Batman action figure, or what have you, and that item is on your mind for quite some time. While it's overall a human trend, it's definitely a boy trend. Then of guys and their gadgets. If they have a new toy that's revolutionized their life, they have to show it to everyone so that everyone can know how useful it would be to have this new digital wonder! Etc. So, it's still new to me. It's shiny. The 'honeymoon isn't over' as the saying goes. (I don't really like that saying, but that's another discussion.) And as a result, I'm reverting back to my 8 year old boy mode, and showing off my new toy to the world. Yes, that's dumbing it down, but it's true, to one extent or another.
2. I've found a new level of discussion with other Masons. It's a level of discussion I haven't found elsewhere. It's deeply introspective, which is something most youth lack. Something I crave. Most twenty-three year olds can't see the future past their next kegger on the weekend. I'm not that kind of twenty-three year old. I want to contemplate the meaning of life. The nature of God. Philosophy, morality, ethics. Granted, when I attend lodge, that's not typical day to day discussion. But Masons are inherently symbolic people, and attach deep meaning to most everything in life. Especially their rituals. (Which, contrary to what many would tell you, are inherently Christian in nature. Symbolically, of course.)
3. I don't feel that I know of a church where I feel at home right now. Now, this is where I'm a bit convicted. I've visited around some, but I certainly haven't visited every church in the area, and I haven't given them all a fair shake. And you know, I'll probably never find the 'perfect' church that I envision in my mind, and I'm coming to grips with that. Honestly, a big part of it is separation from Sharon. I don't like going to church without her. I want to share my spiritual life with her, and it sometimes feels incomplete without her. I know she probably doesn't feel this way at times. I'm a pain in the butt. (If you're reading, sorry for being a butt-pain honey!) But, she's such an important part of my life, I want her to be there with me. And I deeply value her insight into Biblical knowledge, even when I'm a total butt-pain about it. 

All Of This Got Me A Thinkin'

I started wondering what it was that has turned me off from particular churches. What were things I valued in certain churches, and what were things I disliked about particular churches I've visited. And of course, that not being enough for me, for I have to increase the difficult in every aspect of my life, I started thinking on a bigger scale, regarding Christianity as a whole. What out there appeals to me/seems right in my mind? What doesn't sit right with what I know of Christ, written in the Bible, the Word of God? Maybe this is a trite way to evaluate things, but I think to some extent I am a bit of the everyman, and this is what the world is seeing in the church right now, and why it is having problems.

[Let me be clear, I do not believe the problem is Christianity. Rather, I believe it's in the people practicing it. I think Christ laid out a perfect plan for our lives and relationship with God, and it is our combined failings as Christians that is the problem, not Christ's teachings.

Also, caveat that these are general observations. This isn't personally attacking anyone. It's thoughts about an entire culture.]

1. Many Christians profess a belief that does not affect their everyday lives. I hesitated to put this first on this list. It doesn't make good authorial sense to do so, as I think it's the greatest single problem, so logically I should place it at the end and make you work your way to it, right? Seriously, though. I know many who proclaim to be a member of one denomination or another, and - from their actions - I would never guess they associate with a Christian Church. Especially people of my generation. Perhaps this is more indicative of my generation's culture than the church. It's sometimes hard to differentiate correlation from causation. But there are many tenants that Christ himself spoke that not only go ignored by many Christians, but is often times outright suppressed. Christs message was 99% love, humility, compassion, charity, and devotion to God. Yes, he overturned the tables of the moneylenders in the Temple. It was God's house. But did he not always welcome anyone who sought him and his guidance? 
2. Christians are trying to impose their beliefs on others rather than selling them by their own merit. The constant legal batters over so many issues in the world today are the symptoms of this problem. Instead of trying to convince others to do something because it is the virtuous, moral, or Godly thing to do, they simply try to gain a simple majority and outlaw a thing in their city/state. That's a lot easier than upholding a belief system on it's own values. Especially when some of those beliefs are dubious. I think one of the most important tenants in Christianity, or any belief system, is that someone chooses to follow its principles. Morals by law are tyranny. Morals by choice are philosophy. The Great Commission asked us to makes disciples among men, and to, "teach them to obey everything I have commanded you." It didn't saying anything about outlawing other beliefs or ways of life to make our own little Christian utopia. No, we were to go out into the world and convince people of Christianity's virtue on it's own merit, as individuals. We need to quit trying to legislate our religion. 
3. Christianity has become a culture, no longer a religion to many people.  This one is difficult to differentiate from the first. But it seems that many are withing the Christian Church not because they've evaluated scripture versus other beliefs and found it to be true, but rather they were simply raised in the Christian Church and that's what they're comfortable with, so they're sticking to it. Rather than introspection and truly changing their life, it's far easier to hit the mark pretty darn close most of the time, and go to church once a week and listen to a preacher rant for an hour about the the failings of others for an hour or so, then go home back to your normal life. There are churches where it's more about patting yourself on the back than weeding out your own flaws. This, I think, it not Christ-like.
4. We, as Christians, have used the 'Grace' concept as a cop out. In fact, I really associate this with some of my experiences with this Baptist Church in my youth. (I was raised Methodist, but had many Baptist friends.) The Baptist Church would have huge weekly devotionals for the town's youth, and like any good Baptist Church, never missed the opportunity for an alter call at the end of the service. One of the big selling points was that all you had to do for salvation was ask for Christ to enter your heart, and His Grace is all that is needed for salvation. While I don't doubt that, I think this has created a consequence-free sort of Christianity. While I don't believe 'good works' can offer salvation, I do think the Grace principle has made many 'act now, ask forgiveness later' Christians. Once again, this ties in strongly to point number one, but I think it's worth mentioning on it's own. 
5. Relative Morality The concept that was is right for one person isn't necessarily right for another, etc, etc. I'm all for tolerating other belief systems. Like I said, we shouldn't legislate Christianity, it should be desired for it's own benefits. But that said, there is good, there is evil. There is right, and there is wrong. What's difficult, sometimes, is discerning what belongs where. There are gray areas. And how do we know which is which?
6. And lastly, Christians Judge Others. A lot. Jesus knew that cheating others was wrong. Yet he still sat with the tax collectors who were often times very willing to skim a little personal profit off the top. You're not going to win flocks to Christ by telling them they're going to hell. You're not going to show Christ's love and compassion by damning others to fire and torment. And you certainly won't convert them by protesting at their functions, mocking their beliefs. If anything, you're giving them one more reason to dislike Christians. And it only takes a very small handful to ruin it for the rest of us. It only takes one bad experience to turn someone sour to God forever. What service have we done to ourselves or God when, instead of giving charity to non Christians, love, friendship, and compassion to them, we simply criticize them of their shortcomings? No service whatsoever, that's what. Christians are especially judgmental of those things they don't understand. We aren't exactly sure what that other belief is, but we're sure it's not in the New Testament, so it must be from the devil! I don't need to study it, I know it's evil!

I'm probably going to expound on each of these points later, maybe even giving each one it's own separate post. I don't know. Depends on where my thoughts go between now and the next time I post. 

But I do think all these things are curable, and fixable. But the terribly hard part is I don't believe any of this can be fixed by any 'revival', even if the aging Billy Graham himself were to come down and lead it. Ultimately it starts at the individual level with the singular Christian. And we're all flawed. I certainly have miles to go. That's what all the introspection has revealed to me! It's convicted me on how much further I have to go in my walk with Christ, and that I ought to use whatever shortcomings I see in the church as guidelines on how I need to grow - for I probably have many, if not all, of the same shortcomings - rather than a criticism to keep using as an excuse. So I think I ought to do some soul searching. 

In what areas is my life not imitating Christ's? What a frightening question for Christians to ask ourselves.

Angel of Light

As the sun sets
And cloud blankets Earth
I stand upon a mountain
Looking down upon
God's Creation

And like a sweetly singing angel
A voice, lucent in the dusk,
A song sings the wind,
Brushes the plains,
Kisses His Work
With gentle blessings.

And that Precious Gift,
Womb of our very civilization
Breathes deeply and sighs,
The sweet exhalation
Of God Himself.

EU to Hold Atheist and Freemason Summit

EUobserver / EU to hold atheist and freemason summit

I'd like to thank Bro. Hodapp for bringing this article to my attention on his blog.

Well, here's a tricky one. Apparently, every year for the past five years, the European Union leaders have met with prominent religious leaders of the European Union. They attempt to open a dialog between the government and the concerns of its religious citizens. It's a noble act, although I don't know if it would fly over here, state side. 

Not unsurprisingly, various Atheists and humanist groups throughout the EU felt they should have a fair shake at sending delegates to meet with the same people, and I'm inclined to agree with them. If its right for the religious groups to do so, then its only right to give the non religious the same benefits. 

What I do have a problem with is this: The humanists groups are having a separate meeting from the religious groups (which is possibly a good thing) and the government has invited Freemasons to send delegates to the humanist meeting.

This is a delicate and possibly precarious situation. Most of those who aren't Freemasons don't realize that there are two pretty distinct forms of Freemasonry. That of Grand Lodge Freemasonry, which has its roots in England, and is considered mainstream Freemasonry, the Masonry you see in America, and that of Grand Orient Masonry, which has its origins in France, but has a foot hold in many of the mainland European countries (including Belgium), and is also referred to as Continental Freemasonry.

There are several significant differences between these two groups. Some of the bigger factors, however, are this:

Mainstream Freemasonry

Grand Orient Freemasonry

Requires a belief in Deity, but otherwise open to all religions, regardless of who your Deity is Only open to men Teaches that one should be a loyal citizen and subject to ones government Politics and religion are not to be discussed in an open lodge. These are considered personal matters, and Masonry will not interfere with specific beliefs, not tell you what you should believe.

Allows atheists to join Allows co-Masonry, that is, the initiation of women Often gets involved in government, attempts to lobby for influence in politics, openly makes politics statements. Also often inquires into a petitioners political beliefs. Many anti Catholic movements in Europe have had prominent Orient Masons involved in them, arguably fueling some of the bad blood between Masonry and Catholicism.

The two groups had a schisms in 1877, which hasn't been rectified, nor does it look like it will be rectified anytime in the near future.

Now the significance of this is Belgium, the country that (rightly) pushed for the atheist/humanist summit in the EU, has a Grand Orient in its country. The Grand Orient of Belgium has indeed opened an office in order to:

...lobby against the rising influence of religious organisations in the EU institutions.

"The masonic orders should practice politics in the positive sense of the term: So that despite their own partisan divisions, they speak out on the side of secularism and voice their disagreement with this or that governmental or European decision," Jean-Michel Quillardet, the former Grand Master of the Grand Orient de France, told Belgian daily Le Soir in an interview out on Wednesday (17 February).

And further:

"It is necessary to impose the universal idea of the Enlightenment, which consists of the notion that people are citizens and European citizens before being Jewish, black, Maghreb, homosexual, heterosexual." 

The second article as well, I found courtesy of Bro. Hodapp's blog.

So I think its safe to assume that it was the Grand Orient of Belgium and its political lobbying office that manage to get their foot in the door of this humanist summit and have the fraternity represented.

However, this poses a number of problems for Regular Freemasonry. Most people don't know that there are two different Masonic 'factions' as it were, and won't distinguish between the two. This is going to give the religious right fodder for the debates, now seeing Freemasons associated with an atheist/humanist summit, regardless of whether or not Regular lodges sent representatives.

If they do send representatives, the association would be true. If they don't, people won't recognize the difference.

It's further complicated by Regular Freemasonry's refusal to be involved in politics. Once again, I think this wise and that the lodges should maintain this rule. According to our traditions and beliefs, we should not be involved in politics. Indeed, some Grand Lodges consider the prohibition of discussion of religion and politics in the lodge as one of our Landmarks. Most regular Masons will tell you that political lobbying isn't something that we should be involved in.

However, if we stay out of the debate, then that means Continental (or Grand Orient) Masonry effectively speaks for all Masons. That isn't true at all, technically, but they will be the only Masons publicly voicing themselves in politics. Given how divergent Continental Masonry is from Regular, their lobbying could hurt Regular Masonry if we choose not to speak up for ourselves.

Yet if Regular Masonry was represented, how should it be done? At the humanist/atheist summit? Regular Masons are all men of a religious nature, though with much variation. I highly doubt Regular lodges would be particularly welcomed at that summit. If fact, I know they wouldn't. Just read this wonderful quote from the article:

"I find it rather odd," David Pollock, president of the European Humanist Federation, told EUobserver. "Some of the Grand Lodges are secularist organisations, and strongly for separation of church and state, but they also retain all sorts of gobbledygook and myths such as the Great Architect of the Universe."

And this, also from Mr. Pollock:

"Neither religious groups nor non-religious ones have any greater claim to taking up the time of commissioners."

"But sadly we lost that battle, and so with the atheist summit, at least we're being treated equally, although I'd rather if we were there along with the churches. Instead we're being bundled off with the Freemasons." 

But if we were to be represented at the religious summit, that would once again stir of the erroneous 'Masonry is a religion' nonsense that its detractors so often employ. Besides, we don't really belong there either. We prohibit the discussion of religion and politics, should we be discussing politics directly with the government and the religious leaders of the world? I think not.

So where does that leave us? Disenfranchised by our own virtues, with irregular Masonry putting on a public face that will reflect on all Masons, whether or not its 'right'. It's not a desirable situation to be in, I think, nor one easily solved. Always those Europeans, causing the problems.

---

As a side note, can anyone imagine the political upheaval here in America if the US Congress, the President, and a special commission set up by the government had an annual summit with religious leaders mandated by law? And then started meeting with atheist/humanist groups as well? I think cable news would explode by virtue of the furor on both sides of the debate. It would be epic and frightening at the same time. (Particularly with how charged politics have been lately.)