A change of mind II

The second event that is contributing to my hopefulness comes, as I said, from the domain of religion, but it was to be found in a very unlikely place: the op-ed pages of the New York Times. On May 30, Stanford anthropology professor, T.M. Luhrmann wrote an editorial entitled "Belief is the Least Part of Faith" (which is related to his recently published book, When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God).

The good professor had spent years studying, visiting and talking to people in evangelical churches. He wanted to know why they went. He starts out making clear that (a) questions like "Does God exist?" or "What is the evidence that there is an invisible agent who has a real impact on our lives?" are abstract, intellectual questions, not questions of faith; and (b) not everyone showing up for church every Sunday is necessarily even sure God does exist, but, what is more, it doesn't really matter. These are unexpected statements in this context, to be sure, but they reflect a change in thinking that has taken and is continuing to take place in the minds of many people these days.

In consonance with the classic anthropologist Émile Durheim's insight that religion arose as a way for social groups to experience themselves as groups, Luhrmann found that people don't go to church because they believe in God; rather, they believe in God because they go to church. As he put it himself, "I saw that people went to church to experience joy and to learn how to have more of it. These days I find that it is more helpful to think about faith as the questions people choose to focus on, rather than the propositions observers think they must hold."

What struck me about this is the de-emphasizing of what one says one believes, but rather that it emphasizes one's experience, what one feels, and ultimately, what one does. That is where the focus has shifted to. It's not what you say, but what you do that matters in the end. Yes, ultimately, actions speak louder than words.

It would seem, then, that there may a shift away from the static nature of noun-based or noun-centered view of the world (i.e., God as entity) to a more process-based, action-centered understanding of reality (i.e., "God" - the Good); that is as a friend of mine put it, "the process of the flow of loving-kindness itself". We shouldn't underestimate the significance of this shift, and we certainly shouldn't be so arrogant to know where this shift is going to lead us. I may be hopeful at the moment, but I'm not an unbridled optimist. We humans are capable of great glories, but we are also capable of screwing up the simplest of things.

The reason for my hopefulness, however, comes from the fact that a shift from noun-thinking, if you will, to verb-thinking, to put it in simplest terms, is a change of mind, and it is precisely the kind of change of mind that I have been referring to so often. Verb-thinking is a fundamentally different kind of thinking than noun-thinking.

Still, the fact that actions, what we do, what others experience of what we do ... the entire complex of human interaction and relations ... speak louder than words is the take-away here. Given that this is the case, I can only admonish all of you to be more careful about what it is you do. In the end, all the world is watching.

A change of mind I

Isn't this all really a personal matter? I mean, how can anyone expect anyone else to see to it that others become less hypocritical. We all acknowledge that the issue has been around for a long time, so maybe it's just a matter of human nature. You know, something that just can't be changed. Maybe it's something we just have to learn to live with.

Well, as I've noted from time to time, we humans are not like the rest of the species on this planet. In contrast to our plant friends and animal relatives, we have a history of changing what and how we think. We have the ability -- much underdeveloped, I will admit -- of changing ourselves, our behavior and our minds. It's not easy, but it can be done. This has been proven over and over and over again. Two recent events have given me reason to hope. Oddly enough, both of these come from the domain of religion, but what good is religion if it can't instill in us some hope? Regardless ... consider this:

Just over two weeks ago, the new pope, Francis, stirred up a hornet's nest in the Vatican by suggesting ... well, saying ... that even atheists could be redeemed if they led a good life. Despite all the clarifications and interpretations and revisions and who knows what-not have been streaming out of the Catholic (and wider Christian) community, I really don't know what all the uproar is about. The only open issue, perhaps is what "good" means, but Pope Francis didn't say anything that can't found in Christian scripture. In the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 25, verses 34-40, Jesus tells a parable about the Judgment of Nations in which he specified the six things that one must do in order to be considered righteous; that is, redeemed and eligible for God's Kingdom, and these are

1. to feed the hungry
2. to give drink to the thirsty
3. to clothe the naked
4. to shelter the homeless
5. to visit the sick
6. to ransom captives (or visit those in prison)

Later, the Catholic church added a seventh item -- "to bury the dead" (which is from the Book of Tobit) -- and together these comprise what is known in Church doctrine as the Seven Corporal Works of Mercy. This is really a very common-sensible list (which many Bible-thumping politicians would do well to revisit), and it surprises me there should be an uproar over something that is this straightforward.

No, the uproar is, at least in my mind, due to the fact that Pope Francis made clear that actions speak louder than words. Those who do these things are righteous, not those who have the list, think they own the list, or tell others that they need to follow the list. None of that matters. What matters is what you do, and this is what is so new about the pope's statements.

The next time, I'll speak about the other event which contributed to my current hopefulness.

A cure for hypocrisy?

There is no way to know completely just how sick any other person may be. We can only know how sick we are ourselves, but only if we are willing to take a serious look at ourselves. If we think we aren't hypocritical at all, then I would suggest that that is the very first indication of a very deep-seated hypocrisy. You need help. I did say that others cannot cure you, but I didn't say that they couldn't help you cure yourself. Of course, if you don't want help, you won't get any. Some things in life are actually very simple.

By the same token, I think it is useful and helpful for all of us to know to recognize a hypocrite when we see one. It is apparently very easy to become infected, and we may want to regulate our behavior if and when we may be dealing with them. How do we do this? Very simply: take others seriously; that's the first step, and then, all you need to do is assess whether what they think and say and say and do are in harmony with each other. The closer the match, the less infected they are. We actually do it every single day, but most of us only do in with others. We also have to do it with ourselves. Do we say what we mean and mean what we say? Do we behave according to what we say we mean? Any mismatch along the way should start raising flags.

The real key, however, is to pay attention to what people do. The old saying that actions speak louder than words is not just a saying. It's a little bit of wisdom that is very easy to put into practice. Of course there are some areas of life in which it is easier to practice than in others. The family, if you have one around, is good place to start, provided you enjoy a modicum of familiarity, familyness and openness. If you're always at each other's throats about whose turn it is to host Thanksgiving dinner or who gets what from Uncle Al's estate, well, you may have tougher time there than you thought. Another possibility is to work together with friends. This presupposes that they are actually friends, and not those of the fair-weather variety or really just acquaintances. In our modern world that works overtime to keep us all separated and thinking only as isolated individuals, there may be some preparatory work that you have to do before you can really get down to business.

You see, when we say one thing and do another, we really need someone to tell us that we did. We may know it in our hearts or conscience, but having someone tell you reminds you that it is apparent to others how you are behaving. By the same token, when someone we know says one things and does something else, we need to bring it to their attention, not to let them know what jerks they are, but so they become aware of the discrepancy and can start working to change that.

Yes, yes, I hear some of you now: but what if they don't want to hear about it? We all know people who don't. For one, we need to rethink our own relationship to these people if that is the case. You really have to ask yourself just who it is you want to chill with, just who or what you wish to be associated with. No one said it would be easy, and it won't be, that's for sure, but if you don't want to continue living in such an unjust world, well, you have to start somewhere, don't you?

Justice and hypocrisy

For those who have been following along (and even more so for those who haven't been), the last few posts ... well, the last several posts have been about one core topic: justice. I have been arguing that what is just is more important and more relevant than what is merely legal. Justice, as I have been describing and discussing it, is always ethical and morally sound, whereas what is legal is not. There is such a thing as unjust laws.

The matter is not one of simple intellectual fascination, rather it is a matter of very practical importance. My admonition at the end of the previous post -- to change your mind -- is a very serious one. What is means practically is that while we may (and many often do) think one thing and say another, it is much more difficult to think one thing and do another. This is the root of the old, and very wise, saying that actions speak louder than words. Yes, once again, I'm not breaking new ground; I'm merely pointing at things that too many seem to have forgotten.

Thinking one thing and saying another or saying one thing and doing another has a name: hypocrisy. It's a much more serious matter than we think. For those of you who have read the Christian gospels, you will be acutely aware of the fact that Jesus' problem with the local powers-that-be, the Scribes and Pharisees, was quite straightforward: he accused them of being hypocrites, which they were. I only mention this because we have the same situation today, regardless of the fact that we neither have Jesus nor Scribes or Pharisees running around. Instead, we have politicians and pundits, and in many regards, they are simply much worse. Congress can speak of fiscal responsibility and getting government spending under control so they cut federal programs that would help the needy, but it doesn't stop them from giving themselves a raise or increasing defense spending. Lots of people speak of freedom, but advocate harsher punishments for protestors, more force to suppress them, or simply passing laws to restrict those freedoms themselves. All of this is hypocritical to the greatest extent. It's not an American phenomenon, by the way, it is a universal one, and modern one in this form (the ancient world had the problem in simply another form).

The real problem with hypocrisy, though, is that it is the poisoner of justice. Where you have hypocrisy, you cannot have justice. Where you have no justice, you have unneeded suffering. Where you have unneeded suffering, you have destruction and death. Where you have destruction and death, you have no real life. No, hypocrisy is a serious problem, and it is like a disease or disability or worse, because, at bottom, it is a mental illness. Hypocrisy has to do with how we think in relation to how we act.

When I challenged everyone to change their minds, what I was primarily doing was asking everyone to take another look and see whether you may not have become infected by the hypocrisy "virus". Do you think you are entitled to certain things that others are not entitled to? Do you believe you deserve more than others? Do you believe that you are solely responsible for your own success but that others are personally responsible for their own failures? Do you clamor for law and order, yet park where you're not supposed to or drive over the legal speed limit? Are there simply some laws that are more applicable to others than to yourself? Do you support certain issues (say, for example, nuclear power or dirty energy) but are against them if you are affected directly (say, having a nuclear power plant built next door or being forced out of your home because a leaky pipeline is being put through)? If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, or if you hesitated even a bit before you answered, you may be suffering from some form of the disease.

The downside is that there is no one you can turn to who can cure you. The upside is that you can cure yourself.