The Pageless Book

Everyone ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force.
- Flavius Josephus, 37 AD - 100 AD.

Omnitheism. It’s one of those words I like to throw around that no one quite understands. From an etymological standpoint the word is no different then pantheism in that both “pan-“ and “omni-” means “all” in Latin and Greek respectively. “Pantheism”, which is the worship of all things as collectively being God, is a well established word in the English language. This is in contrast with “Omnitheism” which can only be found sparely used by a handful of people on the internet and does not have a definition from an authoritative source.Why use a word that has so little history to describe my religious inclinations? It may seem silly, but I don’t believe any of the other words properly describe how I view the Divine. I’m not saying that there has not been others throughout history who share my particular understanding of the Divine. I’m not saying that I invented the word “Omnitheism” either, as there are currently at least three or four people who could lay claim to that title, none of whom are myself. I am going to work towards giving this word a proper definition that everyone can understand and appreciate, that clearly differentiates it from other religious terminology.

So what is Omnitheism? There are two ways in which you can define this word. One method of defining this word by dropping large theological concepts into the collective laps of my readers and elaborating on them with the eloquence of an 18th century philosopher. The benefit of defining a word this way is appearing intelligent and well educated to the two, or maybe three, readers that might be able to follow my train-wreck of logic. Seeing as I do not yet have a theological degree, I don’t see the point in trying to fool with break-teeth words; I would probably end up using the words incorrectly anyway.

The other method of definition looks at how we relate to the Divine and practice of our spirituality. This method, unlike the other, would give you an idea of what Omnitheism looks like. This is the method I want to use because I want to give you a working understanding of what it means to be an omnitheist. No pretense, no twelve syllable words, and no bull.

As you may have guessed, Omnitheism is a melting pot of religions and philosophies. Omnitheism is the belief that no single religion, philosophy, or science can ever accurately explain or describe in full the nature of reality, the nature of the human experience, or the nature of the divine, yet each contributes to an over-all understanding of such. In addition, Omnitheism encourages constant spiritual exploration and experimentation in contrast to the unyielding belief or dogma of many religions. This may lead to many interesting questions. I’m not going to attempt to answer them all in one post, but I will attempt to touch on what omnitheists believe concerning God, what makes Omnitheism different from other spiritual paths, and how omnitheists worship.

To an omnitheist, the Divine is both distant and personal, a part of creation and apart from creation, many entities and one, intelligent and a force of nature. The metaphors and examples of what omnitheists believe concerning God could very well fill an entire book. I’ll spare you the repetition; the bottom line is, our language and logic are not able fully explain the nature of the Divine. Seemingly contradictory statements made about the Divine could very well both be true in one sense and both false in another sense. Omnitheists don’t pretend to know the nature of God, but still can form their own opinions based upon what is known to be true and their own personal spiritual experience.

One thing that all Omnitheists agree on is that the Divine does not seem to differentiate believers in one religion from the other. Members of all religions and paths have similar profound experiences, although they might be interpreted differently depending on the culture. Omnitheism takes that observation and brings it to a logical conclusion. It doesn’t matter how you define the Divine, all that matters is that it is experienced by all people.

How is Omnitheism, then, different then deism or spiritual atheism? It is how omnitheists relate to the collected wisdom, practices, and stories of other religions. Unlike deism or spiritual atheism, Omnitheism still finds validity in the holy texts, practices, and the ideas of other religions. Omnitheism teaches that the Divine speaks to different people in different ways. Just because the Divine reveals itself to one person in one fashion and other people in another fashion does not mean one must be true and the other false.

As already discussed, our language and understanding are not fully able to comprehend the Divine, so what the Divine gives us are allegories and symbolism. While this makes all holy texts inherently flawed, through attempting to understand what is being said and the essential truths behind the words and practices, we begin to be able to realize more of those truths. That realization and work cannot be done by someone else; it has to be done by each individual for him or herself.

That leads us to the issue of worship. The problem, if you can call it a problem, is that Omnitheism is a belief that can manifest itself in a large number of ways. You could almost imagine this faith as an empty white room that you are expected to paint in any color or combination of colors that you desire. This differs from mainstream religions, in that the work of building a relationship with the divine isn’t already done. You must put forth the effort to find what colors, or what means of worship, work for you.

The majority of omnitheists will be those who strive to worship God through the practices of several different religions. It only makes sense; most people would become omnitheists because they see similarity and beauty in more then one religion. Does that mean that the practice of these omnitheists are cobbled together like some strange Frankenstein monster? No. Omnitheism is not only the view that all religions are valid, but also is the view that all religions should be respected. What it means is that omnitheists will try to relate to God in a way that is completely unique unto themselves, making a subtle art out of their own worship. One might find regular prayer and meditation important to their individual worship, while another omnitheist might preform rituals of her own design. Yet another omnitheist may forgo all means of worship, concentrating instead in honoring the Divine by living a life of integrity and joy.

I’m not claiming that Omnitheism is for everyone, nor am I suggesting that this spiritual path is more valid just because it is broader in scope. Each person needs to find their own way to relate to the Divine; no one religion or path can ever satisfy everyone. As someone who has taken a serious look at several different religions and realized that they each have something to offer, I found “Omnitheist” to be the only label with which I felt comfortable. I suspect that there are more than a few other individuals who might feel as I do, but just do not have the word to describe what they believe. Perhaps you feel that Omnitheism fits you, or perhaps someone you know, as well?

First Image by Jared Tarbell. Second Image from John Guano. Third Photo from David Shapinsky. Final Image by Charis Tsevis. Originally Published October 12th, 2007.

God is an alcoholic substance made of fermented grains and hops… No! Seriously! Just watch the video!

I have a formula I’ve been working on. Now, it isn’t a perfect formula, nor is it a particularly original formula, as bits and pieces of it has existed since before the fall of Rome. It is just another iteration of what philosophy, religion, and science has been telling us for hundreds of years. What makes this formula different is its brevity. This is the God Equation…

God = Truth = Life = Love

God is Truth, God is Life, God is Love, and all three of these concepts are also equal to each other. Now, for all those who like to think literally, I’m well aware that the dictionary definitions of these four words do not lend itself to my formula. However, from a philosophical and theological point of view, this formula makes sense.

In the Christian tradition, there are a number of bible verses that support my formula. John 8:32: reads: “…you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 2 John 1:2 reads “…because of the truth that resides in us and will be with us forever.” What other truth do these verses refer to other than the Holy Spirit? John 1:4 reads: “In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.” In John 6:48, Jesus said: “I am the bread of life.” Does it not sound like Christ is equating himself with life itself? 1 John 4:8 reads: “The person who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” In John 15:12, Jesus said: “My commandment is this - to love on another just as I have loved you.”

Granted, I do not consider myself a Christian, and read into scripture the meaning that I understand as a Unitarian Universalist, and an Omnitheist. As such, I know that Christian readers may not agree with all the conclusions I come to further in this article. I’ve also have utilized only one of the four Gospel writers. What can I say? Guys named “John” tend to be great writers…

What does it mean to equate God with Truth? Does this mean to say that God is undeniable real? Yes and No; it means that our understanding of what God is should be grounded in that which is undeniably real. If I believe that God is literally a great, thunderbolt wielding, old man in the sky, I’m going to have a hard time proving this. To quote Michael Dowd, a fellow UU, God is nothing less, but may be infinitely more, than the totality of reality.

Everything that can be proven to be true reveals something about the nature of God. Science can be and should be viewed through the lens of understanding the creation in order to understand the creator. The God and Truth does not change - only our perspective changes; there are hundreds of religions only because there are so many different ways of relating to God. Even more interesting is how misunderstanding and deliberate falsehood actually reveal more about the nature of the Truth and God than it obscures… At least that is my observation.

What does it mean to equate God with Life? Far too many people concern themselves with the noun “God,” and yet pay little attention to the verb “God.” God is in every moment, every choice, and every outcome of every “thing.” God is a process, just as Life is a process. This is what is meant by “Process Theology.” Every moment of our lives is a new revelation of our God’s glory, as is every moment of all other life. Some would claim that the sum of all things are encompassed by God. I would correct them and say that the sum of all change is encompassed by God.

When I say that every moment of our lives and the lives of others is a revelation of God, I am not being figurative. Even our dreams, hallucinations, and fantasies reveal some part of God that we might not have known of before. Every reaction to our action is a lesson waiting to be learned - a teaching of God. Sometimes the lesson is obvious… other times the lesson challenges us to find meaning in that which seems senseless.

What does it mean to equate God with Love? Think about what love is for one moment; it brings parts into something greater than there sum. Two human beings that share love towards one another, lift each other up, learn from each other’s differences, and become stronger individuals through that relationship. What happens when we apply love to all things? We become one with all things as mystics. We learn from all things, are lifted up by the totality of reality, and become stronger individuals through that relationship.

Through our understanding of Truth, Life, and Love, we gain a better understanding of God. This is far better an understanding than what we could ever achieve through rote memorization of Holy Text or constant theological philosophizing (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else). The God Equation puts all of religion and spirituality in perspective, allowing each human being to follow his or her own path. I think this has the potential of creating harmony between religions while maintaining the viability of all religious traditions… but I’m sure some would differ with my assessment.

First photo by Got Jenna. Second photo by Bart. Third Photo by Alice Cornelia. Final Photo by Jennifer R.

Rev. Michael Dowd was the guest speaker at the UU church I attend this Sunday. He’s the author of a book entitled Thank God for Evolution, which has been endorsed by five Nobel Laureates, all of whom have were awarded the prize in science related fields. Rev. Dowd considers himself an Evolutionary Evangelist; he and his wife have been traveling the U.S. for the last six years preaching Evolution Theology. It’s worth a look-see…

So… look and see already!

I’ve receive two interesting and well written comments recently on a couple older articles which debate the main points of those articles. Now I could just respond to these comments briefly and then move on, but I am struck with how much time and effort these two visitors placed in their comments. Anything less than a thorough and well thought out response would be insulting, so I’ve decided that I’m going to respond to these two comments as their own article.

The first visitor, Ian, who responded to “The Failure of Apologetics & The Mind of God” wrote:

In your completely valid and welcomed argument you have used Apologetics to show that Apologetics is not a reasonable form of combating the modern world. Apologetics is simply the defense of our religion, it is a practice of using words and ideas of an unbeliever on terms they can understand. It is not so conclusive that it “proves” to an unbeliever that Christianity is the only true religion any more than we can “prove” what happened during the creation. Faith is still a requirement of God.

Thank you, Ian. I appreciate that you enjoyed my article.

The problem is that a defense of Christianity needs to be conclusive by virtue of it’s claim to being the only true religion. A defense which is not conclusive, cannot defend the claim of being the only true religion at all. Once that contention falls to the blade of logical argument, any amount of defense beyond that becomes pointless… makes apologetics pointless.

However, if Christianity backs off the claim of being the only true religion, Christianity as a whole becomes more defendable from a logical stand point. This is true of all religions; once you declare the unique position of being the only true religion, you instantly lose credibility in any logical argument. In backing off from that claim, the other aspects of religion become more understandable in context to the human condition.

According to Christianity, faith is required of us by God, but I ask you what if it is actually we who need faith - any faith -  for no other purpose than our mental and emotional well being? What if faith had less to do about God and more to do about the human condition? How would this change our relationship with God and with religion? Its worth thinking about.

Today Christians are becoming increasingly polarized with the rest of society… The departure of modern society from its morals founded in Christianity was not due to ignorant or wayward Christians (though they certainly didn’t help). It was due to what great minds believed was the evolving (and to them, better) form of human logic and reason. What they did not realize at the time is that God invented Logic and reason. John 1:1 in Greek, which it was originally written reads “In the beginning there was logos”. A divine, logical, mind.

If I’m understanding you correctly, in your opinion the cause of the polarization between Christianity and the rest of society is because society is moving away from Christian morality. In all honesty, I am not convince that there was ever a time in history when Western society adhered to the morality that Jesus proposed. Not that the morality practiced by Christians was not the dominate force at one time or another - but that there has always been a large gulf between what Jesus taught and what his followers did in his name. I’m not just referring to the more egregious offences to morality made by a minority of Christians, I’m talking about the day to day attitudes and actions of Christian society as a whole. The polarization between Christianity and the rest of society has more to do with society’s secularization which, in my opinion, has actually been a boon to the morality of Western society.

Logic was not invented by God - it is purely man-made. Logic may be the highest form of thought for human beings, but that doesn’t mean that there are not yet even higher forms of thought. “Logos” is Greek for “word.” In my opinion, it’s use in the Bible refers to Truth - not the mind of God but simply Truth. From this you could postulate that Truth was created by God. Logic, on the other hand, is just one method or tool used to reach that Truth.

Faith is a deeply personal thing, and as you said yourself, extremely hard to put into exact words when expressing it. I don’t believe that a Christian Apologist or an “Apologist-created” convert has a weaker faith, on the contrary, the more either of these people can see or explain with words or ideas the stronger their faith will be. Just as the Christian that goes hiking can see all of the finer complexities and details of nature will feel closer to God, the Christian that sees the subtle genius of logic will as well.

I never said that a person who used or was converted by apologetics was weaker in faith. I did, however, point out that the success rate of Christian apologetics is abysmal. Being able to articulate what you feel does not make that feeling any more or less real; faith is a feeling.

Theists may feel uncomfortable with it, I would see why, because it requires them to climb out of their shell. It is so much easier to argue that you feel a certain way because you have “faith” in God than it is to do your homework and learn why everyone else thinks differently. On some level they may be afraid to “lose” an argument or debate for God, or maybe if they go looking for the answers they might find something they didn’t want to know that would change their beliefs.

You know… I couldn’t have said that better. Well said! The only thing that I would change is, that, instead of referring to apologetics, it would refer to religious pluralism, religious tolerance, and inter-religious dialogue. Those subjects may very well be off topic, but I feel that they are key to the future growth of religion as a whole - Christianity included.

Apologetics should not replace one’s religion any more than one should take a Tylenol after their headache is gone. At this time though it is necessary to show, as Children of God, that he has relevance in this day and age. Refusing to speak and talk amongst those we as Christians seek to convert is not only the opposite of what Jesus Christ did, it will send our religion further to the fringe, and society further to the brink of lawlessness and debauchery.

I would argue that apologetics is not useful at all - and I guess that was the point of this whole article. You don’t need apologetics to prove that Christianity or God is relevant in this age - you need merely do good in the world and speak honestly. There is great difference between what Jesus did, and the missionary work of Christians. Jesus wasn’t trying to “convert” anybody, but rather challenged and questioned their beliefs to show them that there is a greater truth. Modern day Christians, on the other hand, seek to turn someone into a Christian, which may not be compatible with that person’s personal truth. You are right in thinking that there needs to be a dialogue, but wrong in what the purpose of that dialogue is - we need to challenge each other to seek greater truth, and not assume to always know what that truth entails.

Also, I don’t see Christianity as being on “the fringe” by any stretch of the imagination. If anything pushes our society to the brink of lawlessness and debauchery, it’ll be because we are not listening to each other.

I am 23 years old, and though I do not know how old you or the rest of those that commented on here are, I know my generation. My generation will allow its children to eradicate religion and morals as we know them and replace them with the postmodern view that “whatever you believe, you may practice, and if your belief says another is wrong, it must go”.

Again, Ian, I have to disagree with you. Tolerance of other religions does not entail loss of morals - it is the refinement of morals. Tolerance is what Jesus taught. Remember the story of the Good Samaritan? That was about religious and cultural tolerance. Whatever you believe, whatever you practice, as long as it tolerant and honest, than it is good. If it is intolerant and self deceptive, than it must go. I think Christianity has a place within that “post-modern” world-view, even if you don’t see it.

Namaste.

Tomorrow I’ll respond to Tanya, who commented on my article, “Learning How To Live With Meaning.”

First Photo by Midiman. Second Photo by Phil Whitehouse. Third Photo by Brian Solis. Final Photo by Pete Birkinshaw.

This past Sunday, Genevra from “One Joy, One Sorrow” wrote about feeling the call to pursue ministry as a Unitarian Universalist. After taking a long look at difficulties that lie ahead for her if she follows the calling, she is “left wondering if it’s okay to pick up the phone, have a short conversation, and then pretend like you aren’t home.” Essentially, she is doubting whether or not her epiphany is actually a calling to ministry, or if it is just an unrealistic dream. Having had similar doubts myself, I felt the need to comment on her post.

I am, at times, in the same situation of doubting if I honestly belong pursuing ministry. Because I am yet to actually live up to my calling, I cannot say that I am any more experienced than Genevra. What I can say is that I know where she is coming from - I still feel terrified of this process, guilty that I do not contribute more, and ill prepared to act on this desire I have to be a UU minister. There is only one thing that keeps me from tucking tail and running the other direction - NEED.

I have a need to share what I understand. I have a need to help others find their own truth. I have a need to fight injustices with greatest weapons God endowed me with - my heart and mind. Those needs keep me coming back. When I ask myself if those needs can be met any other way, I find that they cannot be filled in any other way.

So, Genevra, I have a proposal for you. Ask yourself “What need is it that draws me to this work?” Then ask if that need can be filled in any other way. If it cannot, you must pursue ministry to find happiness in your life - that is your calling. If you find that the fear of pursuing this path outweighs your needs, then you need not feel any shame turning away and finding another means of satisfying those needs. Growing as a human being takes precedence over any judgement you might face in changing your mind.

How you pursue it right now and in the future is entirely up to you - a way will be made one way or another. Right now, I am not in school actively working towards a theology degree. I simply do not have the resources to sink into the college education that I need. Instead, I’m taking the time to learn what I need to know by other means. I’m pursuing management within the company I currently work for, knowing that management skills are an asset to a career in ministry. I’m writing this blog, constantly refining my own understanding of spirituality and religion. Finally, I’m participating in my congregation’s Lay Worship Associates Committee, so I can learn how to write services and sermons and deliver them.

You, too, can consider alternative means of reaching towards the goal of ministry. Ultimately, religion is about learning how to best live your life. Every lesson you learn every day of your life is ministry training - you need only see it as such.

I hope this response is helpful, regardless of which path you choose - and I hope that I am not being too presumptuous in posting my response. Let me know if you want to talk… we’ve all got to support each other, you know?

Namaste.

Top Photo by Mark Kobayashi-Hillary. Bottom Photo by Aussie Gall.

Photo Above by Brian Gautreau. Photo Below by Hojusaram. Final Photo by Gutter.

During the summer months and once per month during the rest of the year, my minister takes a break from the pulpit and allow members of our congregation, through the Lay Worship Committee, to conduct a service in her stead. Now, I’ve been a member of this church for all of nine or so months. For a scant three of those months, I’ve been a member of the Lay Worship Committee. Yesterday, I conducted my first service, in which I delivered my first sermon.

Of course, for someone who has aspirations of becoming a minister himself at some point in the future, this is all a logical progression of events. However, there is one thing that readers of this blog wouldn’t know about me unless they have met me in person - I am very much an introvert. Despite that I received a number of compliments from fellow church members that I looked in control and self confident at the pulpit, I was a nervous wreck by the end of the service. So I’d like to offer a sincere apology to everyone who approached me after the service - that blank look on my face was shock, and I really do appreciate your feedback. The impression I got from the congregation was that the service was a success. There were a few flub-ups on my behalf, but all-in-all, everything went smoothly.

For the reading please of my online spiritual family, and everyone in the UU blogosphere, I’d like to share my sermon, presented June 29th, 2008.

The Independence of Thought

What would life be like without any of those who dared to question the monolithic institutions of their day? Can anyone here tell me what they think life would be like without men and women who thought for themselves? Anyone? [Audience Participation] Well, I think it’s obvious from the answers everyone has given and your presence in a church with a history of great thinkers, that we all know a thing or two about rebellion against the status quo. However, there is one thing that wasn’t mentioned about a life without men and women who dare to think for themselves; noone would ever have to be offended. For all the good that questioning authority and challenging injustices does, it has this annoying tendency to offend.

I like to think of myself as a open minded individual, yet recently I found myself in the position to be the one offended by someone else’s idea of progress. Last week, a decision came down from the Supreme Court about the death penalty which I still have a hard time accepting. I won’t go into details about the ruling, except to say it is one of the more controversial rulings made in recent years, with good reason. Intellectually, I understand the rationality behind the ruling; emotionally, I’m disgusted. I could very well go with my emotional reaction - and that is so much easier than actually considering all sides of the argument. However, if I didn’t give all sides consideration, I could no longer honestly call myself open minded.

We should remind ourselves, from time to time, that thinking for yourself is in no way easy. The men and women who lived and died fighting the injustices, superstitions, and preconceptions of their day, were terrified every step of the way. Those who have chiseled their way through walls of oppression with their bare hands, did so not knowing whether their efforts had any effect. We each know in the back of our minds that the struggle is still far from over, yet it is so easy not to question, not to think, and allow ourselves to be led.

Emerson had said, in his essay on Intellect, “God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please, — you can never have both. Between these, as a pendulum, man oscillates. He in whom the love of repose predominates will accept the first creed, the first philosophy, the first political party he meets, — most likely his father’s. He gets rest, commodity, and reputation; but he shuts the door of truth. He in whom the love of truth predominates will keep himself aloof from all moorings, and afloat. He will abstain from dogmatism, and recognize all the opposite negations, between which, as walls, his being is swung. He submits to the inconvenience of suspense and imperfect opinion, but he is a candidate for truth, as the other is not, and respects the highest law of his being.” I couldn’t agree with Emerson more.

Questions and Doubt. Curiosity and Rebellion. For many, these represent the very opposite of what it means to have faith. Yet, it is the seeds of doubt that flower into new sciences. It is the rebellion against the status-quo that brings greater justice and freedom to all people. It is our curiosity which makes the world seem to be filled with wonder, and it is our questions which refine our understanding of the truth. “Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is one element of faith,” as the theologian Paul Tillich had said.

The independence of thought from outside influences does not diminish faith in the Truth we find, but rather it redefines our relationship with our faith. Blind faith - faith outside the confines of reason, not subjected to the distilling qualities of doubt - is fickle. When someone speaks about losing faith, they are talking about no longer being able to find security in an untested ideal or idea. That feeling of security that blind faith instills can flit away at a moments notice and will only return when no longer questioned.

However, that is not the faith of this religion. We are encouraged to question and doubt, here. In this house, we are free to be curious, to rebel against antiquated traditions, to play hide-and-seek with God, and to think for ourselves. That faith is unshakeable. It is tested in the laboratories of our lives, and found good and true time and time again. And although our faith is diverse and sometimes at odds with fellow Unitarian Universalists, we use our differences only to further refine that which we find to be true.

Above Photo by Joka2000. Photo Below by Alan Turkus. Final Photo by Joel Friesen.

Of Sandalphon, the second part of The Gated Emptiness, changes in tone and language from the rest of the text. The perspective shifts from third person to first person; little doubt is left as to whom is speaking. God speaks to us directly in these passages in a strangely humble demeanor.

I must remind the reader that this is filtered through my own consciousness. While I have perceived God speaking in a humble manner, it might be a result of my own discontent with the demanding God of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. This means nothing as to the true personality of God; it is my understanding that our concept of personality is meaningless when compared against true divine consciousness. The text reads:

I am confusion. I am confused as you are. I am you.

Now, these three statements pose a significant problem - God isn’t suppose to be confused. Isn’t the Divine suppose to have some plan? Theologically, this can be pretty disturbing. However, there is more here than what is on the surface. The word “confusion” comes from the Latin word “confundere” which means to pour together. In the word’s evolution, it has also passed through old French as meaning “to overthrow”, before coming to the English language as meaning “mental perplexity or disturbance”.

All three of these definition play a part in understanding the meaning of this text. First, we are told that God embodies confusion. We are confused as to the nature of God, as it is beyond our ability to comprehend. What does it mean, however, to say that God is the embodiment of overthrowing? This becomes more clear with the second statement; saying that God is “overthrown” implies that God changes. Like we do, God evolves and learns through alternating between confusion and realization.

Yet this leads us to another question - why does God need to evolve or learn? With the third and final statement in conjunction with our third definition, this answer is laid to bare; we are apart of God. Just as we are several things “poured together” into human form - muscles, organs, cells, proteins, and atoms - God is also the admixture of several things; the only difference is that God’s “things” encompasses all. The text continues:

You will not be rid of me. You might shred off the fat and skin of your body, skewer your flesh with your own bone and I will be in pain with you. If you should love yourself, I would love you.

Well, if God is inherent in all things, and all things in God, it makes sense that we could not get rid of God. When we suffer God would suffer, just as when we cut our finger, we feel the pain with our finger. Should we choose to love ourselves, God would love us in return as we are apart of God. Only when we become hateful does the Divine become hateful towards us, just as we would hate cells that turn cancerous within our own body. Yet God is not done speaking about his love for us; the text continues:

Innumerous are the ways in which I love you. I love you with death and I love you with life. I love you with pain and with ecstasy. I love you with the blue empty sky and the full brown earth. I shall not save you from my love; I made you to see, and you shall see it all.

Death and life, pain and pleasure, all that is above and all that is below - all of our individual experiences are manifestations of God’s love for us. Our purpose in life is to find meaning within those experiences, to learn, and to evolve. We cannot be asked to be spared heartache, pain, and suffering; we would be in affect asking to remain unchanged, uninspired, and ignorant. Worse yet, we would be asking God to remain unchanging, uninspired, and support us like some parents support basement dwelling men and women in their early twenties.

I suspect that some would disagree with what I have written here, considering that my interpretation of this text amounts to answers for long-held insurmountable questions. To think that a few sentences are enough to answer the question “what is the meaning of life” or “why does God make us suffer” would be foolish on my part. However, I dare to suggest that what I am getting at is a fairly good guide towards answers for those questions. Like a finger pointing to the moon, it is important not to misinterpret that which points to the truth for the truth.

Above Photo by Steven Keys. Photo Below by Maria Ganessas.

“Young man—Young man—Your arm’s too short to box with God.”
- James Weldon Johnson, 1871–1938.

The above famed quote, often reiterated by Christians and other mainstream monotheists, is assumed to mean that you cannot fight against God’s will, or defeat the universal truth of God. It has been used as a condescending way to counter the arguments of those that fall outside the bounds of mainstream religion. Yet, I feel that the full extent of meaning behind the quote is lost to those who use it in arrogance as a verbal parry. The irony of the situation is that it is the religions themselves who provide the target with which to box - not God.

How so, you might ask. After all, the greatness of the Divine is beyond the reach of men and women of this world. How then can I fault monotheistic religions for making this claim? How can I point and show that it is they who are the cause of this conflict? The answer - another ironic twist. The fault that I find with the mainstream religions of the western world is the same fault that they had found with the fallen polytheistic religions - idolatry.

Most monotheistic religions believe that they know the difference between an idol and the One True God. The God they worship is, of course, assumed to be correct, while the God that everyone else worships is implied to be the idol. Just what does it mean to worship an idol? The practice of literally bowing before a statue in reverence has not been common in western culture since before the colonization of the Americas. In this society, idolatry has come to mean the worship of ideas as God.

What ideas do we, as a society, worship as God? There are no lack of choices; we as a society have chosen to venerate sex, money, movie stars, musicians, and athletes as the end-all and be-all. We are a society of vices and it has long been the mainstream religious establishments that have fought against our idolatries. So, what gives me the right to say that they, too, are idolaters? Their idols are their ideas of what God is or is not and their presumed exclusive access to the “Truth.”

Let me give you an example of how these faiths set up idols on God’s throne. Were I to claim that only adherents of my particular faith will receive God’s heavenly reward, I would be rejecting a God that would choose to give the heavenly reward to all people. If I were to claim that only the literal interpretation of a particular holy text is the correct and final word of God, I would be rejecting a God that would choose to speak freely with whomever listened. The moment I told you that your concept of God is incorrect, I would presume to tell God what God can and can not do. Your arms are too short to box with God, but I could claim God is small enough to fit inside a box? We box not with God, but instead with the mainstream religions’ narrow concept of God.

Trying to force something as great as God to conform to the limits of mortal intellect and ego is like trying to bottle sunlight - it’s absurd. We must stop trying to define the undefinable, limit the limitless and measure the infinite. What we are then left with is a spirituality that does not contradict science, never becomes dated or irrelevant, and is always the source of unity and brotherhood.

Originally Published September 25th, 2007.

Above Photo by Conor Lawless. Photo Below by Hyperfinch. Goddess Image by Dave Gough. Last Photo Below by D.A.K. Photography.

Wicca is one religious path that remains near and dear to my heart. When I first began looking into other religions, Wicca was one of the first that piqued my interest. While I am far too monotheistic to fully embrace Wicca, what I have learned from that religion affects my spiritual journey even today.

I first learned of Wicca by reading the original printing of True Magick by Amber K. I was a teenager and, having officially declared myself a non-Christian to my rather open minded parents, felt like being a little bit rebellious. Getting involved in something like “witchcraft” seemed to more than qualify. However, my interests became less superficial the more I learned. Wicca opened my eyes to the divine within nature, within the feminine, and within myself.

Nature

Western Culture has this annoying habit of sanctifying concepts and secularizing the physical world. In no way is this more tangible than in the way we treat the natural world. We have this perception of land being a commodity and limitless resource, believing wrongly that it exists solely to support humanity and our interests. This attitude has taken a toll on the environment and its wildlife. Only now in our history are we beginning to seriously fear the repercussions of our actions and looking for ways in which we can repair the damage. Many people wonder if we are too late.

In Christianity and other mainstream religions, the innate Divinity within nature is down-played and sometimes even demonized. Being raised Christian, my connection to nature was muted, even though I had always been humbled by nature. When I finally tapped into nature as a source of spiritual sustenance, the Wiccan doctrine of embracing nature as Divine came easily, as if it was a part of my heritage. This truth had been at the foundation of humanity’s first spiritual experiences. Honoring nature instead of seeing it as yet another resource for plundering helped me touch another side of the Divine I had never considered, and showed me how the delicate web of life cradles us all.

The Feminine

Sexuality has a lot in common with spirituality; both speak to the very essence of who we are as individuals and both are rooted painfully deep within the psyche. Like most Americans, at some point I was indoctrinated into believing that sex is some dirty cheep thrill, meant only for the pretty and well-endowed. Our culture became saturated with this message that turns women into objects and men into animals. The root of the problem is the failure to accept sexuality as being an expression of the Divine. Wiccan celebration of sexuality and the personification of the Divine as female goes against the grain of our culture and, in part, helps to heal the damage this message has done.

I cannot honestly say that I am as enlightened to the spiritual nature of sexuality as I would like to be. As a man, I still have problems separating myself from the message of what our society says sex should be like and accept the spiritual significance of a female divinity. However, my experiences as a Wiccan have helped me accept and embrace the feminine aspect of myself, which helps in reaching the other two truths. Despite not seeing the Divine as being female or male, my understanding of the Divine has been greatly affected by the Wiccan Goddess and the truths she represents.

The Self

It may smack of egotism and hubris to some, however, recognizing the self as being divine is probably one of the most powerful ways in which to get in touch with the Divine. Western Culture frowns upon reveling in one’s own innate divinity, beauty, and truth, preferring instead that we accept the Christian doctrine of original sin. Wicca, however, encourages radical use of innate divinity by teaching that each individual has a direct affect upon the world in which we live through ritual. They call this witchcraft or simply magic. Say what you want about the plausibility of magic - it is still one of the central teachings of Wicca and does have a noticeably positive impact on spirituality.

Although I didn’t practice much Wiccan magic, the concepts behind witchcraft later opened me to other occult theories and ideas. Together, these have been a boon to my self confidence, self respect, and self love. How many people today can say that they love themselves? I can. While I don’t stand behind witchcraft’s claim to manipulate reality, I do trust that ritual, whether Wiccan or otherwise, is a powerful psychological tool with which an individual can change themselves.

Perhaps Wicca no longer fulfills my spiritual needs, but it should be obvious that I still hold this religion in high esteem. Where other religions are several steps back from liberating the individual, this religion represents several steps forward. Because it has been such a large part of my personal spiritual journey, Wicca will always have a place in my heart.