TruthBook Religious News Blog

Monday, March 3, 2008

By Sally Pollak
Free Press Staff Writer

Book Review: "Revolutionary Spirits: The Enlightened Faith of America's Founding Fathers" by Gary Kowalski.

The book focuses on the beliefs and interests of six men who were influential and instrumental in the founding of the nation: Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

These leaders, Kowalski said, were "original and idiosyncratic religious thinkers." Kowalski said he would characterize all of them in two ways:

Religious naturalists: The men found God in nature rather than scripture or the traditional revelations.

Religious liberals: They believed that faith should flourish, but it should do so in the private sphere -- within a certain "inviolable zone of personal freedom that neither the state nor the church can intrude upon," Kowalski said.

Kowalski's interest in researching and writing about the faith of the founding fathers was driven by what he thinks are common misperceptions about who these men were and what they believed in. There are many people who believe the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation by a group of men who were devout believers in the bible, Kowalski said.

He learned that the founding fathers were curious thinkers with an interest in science and philosophy. They were comfortable asking questions that yielded ambiguous and complex answers. Their insistence on the separation of church and state was intended to help religious freedom and religious diversity flourish -- and an effort to prevent the submission of certain religions by a dominant faith, Kowalski said. They were religious pluralists who believed the nation benefited from a diversity of faiths.

"I think the founders would be disturbed by the way journalists and voters seem to be applying a religious screen to the presidential candidates," he said. "They were discreet about their religious beliefs, and never paraded them for purposes of gaining votes. They'd be dismayed to see the way candidates are expected to profess their piety as great church-goers -- as though that's a qualification for public office. The idea that God identified with some party platform would've been completely foreign to their thinking."

Kowalski used a combination of primary and secondary sources for his research. Private correspondence, including condolence letters sent when family members died, revealed insights into the men's beliefs, he said.

Kowalski writes that Washington "deliberately avoided using the word 'God' in his public statements."

He notes that Jefferson put together his own bible, the first version titled "The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth." In his bible, Jefferson eliminated miracles -- including the virgin birth.

Adams, who was interested in scientific inquiry, had a particular interest in astronomy. He speculated about life on other planets and the connectedness of the universe, writing that "it is highly probable every particle of matter influences and is influenced by every other particle in the whole collected universe."

"The founders believed and hoped that religion would be a cohesive social force," Kowalski said. "They believed that all denominations share some of the same values -- justice, love, mercy -- and that religion lists us above narrow self-interests in its concern for the public good."

Labels: America, Founding Fathers, Gary Kowalski, George Washington, John Adams, Liberal, naturalism, religion, Sally Pollak, Thomas Jefferson

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Feel-good religion without concern lacks relevance in real world

by Roger Ray

"Do you think you will ever go to church again?" My daughter's question was more than a casual dinner query, even though she tried to present it that way. After 28 years as a parish pastor, conducting three or four religious services a week, now that I am taking a sabbatical, the decision to go back to church is anything but a certainty. "I think so," was the best that I could muster for my daughter. The truth is, I have no idea of where we could go and find what our hearts really long for.
At a lunch meeting with a group of retired clergy and professors, each bemoaned the state of the modern church, "I go week after week," one offered, "and you would never know that the nation was at war." Another added, "All I hear about is how to have a happier life, nothing about poverty, nothing about injustice ... I can barely make myself go."

The famous Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, railed against the church in Europe 150 years ago for being nearly totally irrelevant, diluting the powerful message of Jesus with self-serving religion (yippee! I get to go to heaven when I die!) and superstition. The French philosophers of the Enlightenment thought that religion had served its purpose and would pass out of existence, unmourned. In the last century, communist experiments tried to replace devotion to religion with a devotion to the ideals of the state, believing that religion served only to make people complacent about the abuses of the rich and promoted an unscientific world view (i.e. creationism: n. 1. A world view unfit for a science fiction comic book).

For centuries, thinkers of many different ilk have been ready to say the last words at the graveside of the church and now, even many of we members of clergy are left to wonder if there is any reason left to care about the institution we once pledged to serve for our whole lives. At a recent national meeting of my denomination, I and a few friends tried to force ourselves to attend the worship and business meetings without much success. "Darwin's waiting room" has become my most common description of such meetings, which seem to primarily waste our time.

Still, there is something about the message of the one who said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" that we cannot let go of. And yet it seems that when we go to church, this message of advocacy for liberation and justice gets turned into a message that tells people to not be gay, to favor the rich, to support inexcusable war and to build big buildings with basketball gymnasiums. And when people begin to become disillusioned and start staying away, rather than returning to the message quoted above (either from Jesus or Isaiah) they tell themselves that what they must urgently do is change the style of music they are singing or improve their buildings. Forgive me for using such strong language, but spirituality which does not respond directly to the message of concern for the poor and liberation of the oppressed is little more than idolatry, fine for people whose real interests are narcissistic anyway but not much to offer to anyone who is sincerely seeking a relationship with the Divine. If the modern church had existed in the first century, Rome would never have bothered to persecute it, nor would they have likely noticed that it existed.

Bob Edgar's recent book, "Middle Church," is an attempt by the former congressman turned National Council of Church's director to offer a word of hope for the recovery of relevance in the modern church. If people like me and my lunch friends as well as my daughter's generation are going to try to find our way back into a pulpit or pew, then the substance of the experience is going to have to dramatically change. Edgar says that a relevant church will seek to "achieve peace, the end of poverty, and the healing of planet earth... (this) must be our immediate moral agenda." He points out that the Bible does not mention abortion a single time, homosexuality only twice and poverty more than 10,000 times. The religion of the people who authored our sacred Scriptures had a relevant faith, but that voice has been all but silenced in the modern era.

That this column is referenced as being "from the left" would seem incomprehensible to the biblical prophets. But in our religious culture, to speak up for the poor, to advocate for peace, to defend the planet from exploitation and ruin are seen as "liberal" only because we have lost our moral compass.

Edgar quotes the late President John F. Kennedy who said, "If by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties... If that is what they mean by a 'liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a liberal." If that is what makes a person a liberal in the minds of conservatives, then so be it. To me, it just means that you are really trying to be a person of meaningful faith. If there are others like me who would like to start a conversation group around Edgar's book and the whole issue of relevant faith, then please be in touch with me at RevDrRay@aol.com.

Labels: Bob Edgar, church, faith, Liberal, religion, Roger Ray, spirituality

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Most see God-creation link: Poll

Jul 03, 2007 01:58 PM

Canadian Press
OTTAWA —

Canadians may not be as religious as Americans, but a new poll suggests they are not prepared to rule out God’s essential role in creation.

The Canadian Press-Decima Research survey suggests that 60 per cent of Canadians believe God had either a direct or indirect role in creating mankind, shattering the myth that Canadians had long ago put their faith strictly behind the scientific explanation for creation.

The poll suggests Canadians divide in essentially three groups on the issue of creation: 34 per cent of those polled said humans developed over millions of years under a process guided by God; 26 per cent said God created humans alone within the last 10,000 years or so; and 29 per cent said they believe evolution occurred with no help from God.

“These results reflect an essential Canadian tendency,” said pollster Bruce Anderson. “We are pretty secular, but pretty hesitant to embrace atheism.”

The belief that God had a direct or indirect role in creation was widespread among the 1,000 respondents questioned between June 21 and 24. A majority of those polled held this view in every region of the country, in rural and urban areas, and regardless of education.

And there were a few surprises: Conservatives were more likely than Liberals to say that God had no part in the process, and Alberta, regarded as the birthplace of social conservatism, had one of the lowest levels of beliefs for strict creationism at 22 per cent.

But in this controversial area, the devil is in the breakdown of the numbers.

For instance, while Liberal party voters were more likely than Conservatives to credit God with some contribution to creation, Conservative voters were less likely to write God out altogether. Only 22 per cent of Tory respondents said God had no role, as opposed to 31 per cent of Liberals.

Liberal respondents were far more likely to be what could be termed “soft evolutionists” or “soft creationists,” with 41 per cent saying God guided the process of human development, as opposed to 34 per cent of Conservatives seeing creation in those terms.

Regionally, Quebec respondents were by far the most likely to say God’s role in creation was a delusion, with 40 per cent saying the evolutionary process had no interference from an intelligent designer.

British Columbia respondents were the next sub-group who could be termed strict evolutionists, with 31 per cent saying God was not involved. Least likely to hold this view were respondents in the Prairie provinces — 21 per cent.

The findings suggest the least educated were most likely to be creationists, as were respondents living in rural Canada.

Among respondents without a high-school diploma, 37 per cent said they believed God alone created humans less than 10,000 years ago, whereas only 15 per cent of university-educated respondents were strict creationists.

Rural respondents also had a plurality who believed in strict creationism at 34 per cent, whereas only 22 per cent of urban dwellers said they believed God alone created humans.
Anderson said the findings suggest Canadians lack consensus on creation, but also don’t view the issue as polarizing.

“It’s more as though for many, these feelings are unresolved,” he said. “We believe in a higher being, we know what we don’t know, are comfortable not knowing, and choose not to press our views upon one another.”

That is not the case in the United States, where similar polls have suggested Americans are more polarized on the subject. In a recent U.S. poll, 45 per cent said God created humans, and 40 per cent said evolution was God guided. Only 15 per cent said God played no part in creation.

The Canadian Press-Decima Research survey is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

Labels: Canada, Conservative, creation, God, Liberal