Positive Christianity

There has been some discussion of positive atheism and this has clarified into the exploration of a rational base for ethics.  I thought I might present something positive about the contribution of Christianity or more specifically Jesus to this rational ethic dialog.  As I see Christianity expressed by its most vocal adherents it tends to be largely negative so I thought I might present something that I have recognized as a major positive contribution Jesus has made to the dialog of ethics and meaning.  Hence the title Positive Christianity.

I think more agnostics and atheists would recognize the contribution of Jesus more often if Christians would't point to it as evidence of the Holy Spirit working on the hearts of us poor atheists and agnostics.  So with that disclaimer I want to wade into this pool that has more than a few pitfalls.  (Baptismal metaphor intentional)

I have been contemplating the idea of having empathy as a more influential basis for ethics for a while and it has been interesting to see others exploring this idea.  Jesus establishes this basis without referring to it directly with his statement to love your neighbor as yourself.  This appears to be a direct reference to one's ability to project one's experience on another.

Jesus further expands this idea of loving one's neighbor with the clever story of the good Samaritan by expanding the definition of our neighbor to all of humanity.  The misdirection of the story provides a rational trap by which the listener has to answer the question of who is one's neighbor by what they do rather than their class or race.

In this TED video Jeremy Rifkin explores the evolution of empathy...



The ideas that stand out here for me are that humans are soft wired to be good to each other and we can evolve to be wired differently.  We can also have this soft wiring suppressed.  I think some forms of religion suppress this by redefining who our neighbor is and recreate new forms of class that don't deserve empathy within its modified world view.

Sam Harris in another TED video talks about the rational basis for ethics along the same lines.



I think if the Bible was only the phrase love your neighbor as yourself and the parable of the good Samaritan the message would be a lot clearer.  As we engage in the very human dialog of what it means to live with each other and to find meaning without destroying each other I would hope we could learn how to recognize what works from reason informed by empathy.

The "Ring of Truth?"

In the last few weeks I have been having a conversation with a number of Christian apologists about the basis of Christian belief in the Divine inspiration of the Bible. This conversation has mainly been about the way in which the Bible was put together and the influences on this process. When we look at the history of this process we find violence, bribery, torture, and political maneuvering. It is very difficult to find anything spiritual within this history.

When the evidence is finally sifted through the “faith” appeal usually is the final appeal for believers. Basically it means that we need to have “faith” in those things that can’t be defended through reason. An interesting application of this “faith” approach is by quoting J. B. Phillips. He used the term “ring of truth” to refer to the Divine nature of the Bible. He noted, as he was translating the Bible, he felt a general “ring of truth” unique to the Bible as compared to his work translating other ancient documents. To be fair to J. B. Phillips, he didn’t believe in verbal inspiration, that Satan was real, nor in many of the “miracles” of Jesus. He would relegate them to either parables, alternate explanations, or myths.

In his autobiography he stated, “...I felt bound to abandon the `God-dictated-every-word- from-cover-to-cover' attitude, and won an attitude which commends itself to my intelligence as well as my faith..." (The Price of Success, Wheaton: Harold Shaw Pub., 1984, p. 150).

I want to look at, more specifically, the gospels. I think if there is a "ring of truth" around the gospels, its because of the profound wisdom of some of the teachings of Jesus. This does not mean that Jesus is divine or is the only source of true wisdom. Much like J. B. Phillips, I don't find a "ring of truth" around the historical account because it appears that there are accommodations for later orthodox beliefs and for several doctrinal problems encountered in the first few centuries of Christianity.

There are some contributions that Jesus makes that, I believe, go unrecognized because of all the emphasis on his death as a sacrifice, the claim of his divine nature, and the need for salvation, which I have come to believe have their source in the strong Greek, Pagan, and Roman influences on the early Christian church.

I would also note that many of us, who grew up in Christian cultures, are working under a fair amount of conditioning in regards to Christianity. And that conditioning has a fair amount of fear involved. This "faith based" reasoning has its counter parts in other traditions that most Christians would find unbelievable. One simply has to note the strong hold the Qur'an has on most Muslims as the final revelation of God or the Book of Morman as a historical record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.

Christians dismiss the mythology of the Qur'an and the Book of Morman for reasons they are unwilling to apply to the Bible because they have "faith." When I look at what is typical of most religious beliefs systems I find the same types of myth building within Christianity. These are powerful cultural influences that are linked very deeply to a person's view of the world. They are not easy to change because they have such a strong momentum.

When I step back from my cultural momentum and view Christian history and belief from a rational perspective, I find the same problems as I find in other belief systems and if I am going to retain an intellectually honest perspective, I need to apply the same types of tests to all belief systems no matter how painful that process may be, because, ultimately, I have found that, as Jesus said, the truth does set one free.

And this brings me back to what may provide a “ring of truth” to the gospel account of Jesus and his teachings. There are a number of themes that Jesus addresses, but the one that is often the most recognizable is his statement that we love our neighbor as our self. This statement is not unique to Jesus since we find the same statement in the Torah. And this is not simply some wise saying, but it is one of the two statements that define the law of God in Jewish belief. The first one being the requirement to love God with all your heart.

In the Torah the statement reads like this

“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:18 NKJ

In this context the idea of one’s neighbor is only within the children of one’s own people. What Jesus adds, through the story of the Good Samaritan, is the idea of one’s neighbor extends far beyond one’s own people. We empathize with the poor man beaten by robbers, abandoned by his countrymen and feel his relief at being taken care of by the Samaritan, who is considered an outcast. And when Jesus asks us who was this beaten man’s neighbor, we feel the injustice of excluding the kind Samaritan from our love simply because he is a Samaritan.

I think this is the key concept that Jesus brings to us. He takes an ethical principle (love your neighbor as yourself) that is based on empathy and uses that empathy to extend this principle to all people. He further links this idea to empathy when he states “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” This is quoted in both Luke 6:31 and in Matthew 7:12.

This idea of empathy, rather than authority, as the basis of ethical behavior puts a lot of confidence in the human heart. It puts confidence in the human capacity to imagine how it might feel to be in another’s place and experience. It also puts a lot of confidence in the ability of one to love one’s self. For me, love for one’s self is the ability to imagine how it might feel to see one’s self from another’s perspective of grace.

This idea, to be fully realized, requires elements of both eastern and western thought. Eastern religious practice has made an art form of the exploration of the inner self. Its practices have the ability to awaken the capabilities of the heart and the capabilities of awareness. Western religious practice has emphasized much of the practical application of belief. Empathy, to be fully developed needs a rich and full inner life and a clear awareness of the world around. Empathy, to be fully applied, needs to know how to turn the gifts of the inner life into connections with others.

Eastern practice tries to avoid dualistic types of thinking to find the middle path. In Western terms this would be a form of Grace, where one gives up the need to punish and refrains from judging. All of these were explored by Jesus within the context of Jewish law. Jesus stated that to judge others was to judge oneself and to be free from judgment one had to refrain from judging others. He was also very practical in his application of love. He references acts of kindness and love as the determining factor of one’s inner life. Acts of kindness done to others was doing them to God. This may have indicated how Jesus saw connections between all and the spirit of God within.

Paul, who claimed to be an apostle, said “Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.” 1st Corinthians 10:24 This is a major shift in ethical emphasis. I believe this created a competition for goodness within Christianity. If one takes away the love for one’s self, empathy is taken away as well. For I no longer have a self to reference other’s feelings. And if I don’t seek my own good at all, then my ability to sustain my own life will take my gifts away from others eventually and in the mean time reduce their effectiveness.

With the introduction of Jesus becoming a sacrifice for our sins, we no longer have a self sustaining philosophy of empathy, but a sacrificing god who we are now required to emulate. The focus is taken off our connection with others through empathy. It is now focused on how much we can sacrifice. The suffering of Jesus and its contemplation holds front and center rather than love for our fellow beings. Ultimately this becomes a practice of self contemplation. The contemplation of one’s worthiness or unworthiness as it may be.

If we can tease one more thing from Jesus, we might contemplate the possible intent of this statement.

'I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink'...Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?...'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Matthew 25:35, 37, 40

If we see Jesus as human, then we could say that any kindness or harm we do is done to everyone. If we see Jesus as Divine, we could say that the Divine dwells in everyone. If we see him as both we could say that everyone is a member of the family and everyone is Divine. I’m sure there are infinite variations of how we might see the nature of humans and Jesus.

What I have observed within communities that I have participated in is that when a person is allowed to tell their story from their heart and is really heard within that community a bond develops and actions naturally come forth. It is clear that when these empathetic connections are established there is a natural desire and motivation to love one another. It comes from the stories of people’s lives told in honest and nonjudgmental ways. And it doesn’t matter what people believe or don’t believe in these moments. That empathetic connection communicates much more than ideals, doctrines, words, philosophies, theologies, or ethics could ever instruct.

So if there is a “ring of truth” in the gospels, for me, it is introduction of empathy as the basis for the expression of love toward each other. May we learn how to more fully feel and express our empathy. I think it would be a far better world if everyone knew how to do this well.

What is our True Nature?

When I was growing up I was taught that human nature was depraved and if left in its natural state would degenerate into total depravity. The only thing holding us from total chaos was the moral teachings of Christianity, going to church, accepting Jesus as my savior and the worship of the one true God in the form of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

As a child this created a fear in me of people who weren't Christians because supposedly they didn't have the restraints we Christians had and they could just degenerate into absolute evil at any moment. And even if they were Christians but didn't hold the specific beliefs of my particular denomination, they only had a tenuous hold on moral restraint at best.

This was explained in the doctrine of original sin. This doctrine solved the problem of why everyone on the planet needed salvation. Today some have even put a scientific spin on it and believe that original sin is within our DNA. Or you can take Eddie Izzard's approach when he talks about Original sin.

"Original sin! What a hellish idea that is. People have to go,

“Father, bless me for I have sinned, I – I did an original sin – I – I poked a badger with a spoon.”

“I’ve never heard of that one before! Five Hail Mary’s and two Hello, Dolly's.”

“Oh, all right…”

“Bless me, Father, for I have slept with my next door neighbor’s wife.”

“Heard it. I want an original sin.”

“Oh, I’m terribly sorry.”

In my observations of humanity I have suspected that the opposite is true. I find most people really want to be thought of as good people. In this short presentation by Daniel Goleman the author of Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, he presents evidence that we are hardwired to be helpful. We have this ability to empathize with other people through some type of common emotional connection. This is activated when we give our attention to the other person. Take a look at this presentation from him at TED.



There are a number of indications that we gain a lot of benefit from doing good deeds. This particular article called The Science of Good Deeds talks about 50 studies going on right now by The Institute for Research on Unlimited Love, headed by Stephen G. Post, PhD, a professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.

I think I prefer to see humanity as having great potential that is built in rather than see us set up to fail. There certainly is more and more evidence that we have some pretty wonderful things built in simply waiting to be awakened.

One example of this is the professional percussionist Evelyn Glennie. She is able to hear with her body. In fact she has to because she is deaf. I will close with this video of her presenting her motivational view of life to a very appreciative audience.

The Mystery of Evil...

Scott Peck in his book "People of the Lie" suggests that the cause of evil is laziness or a form of laziness called cowardice. It exhibits itself in the lives of people who are unwilling to face the truth and are willing to believe or create a lie instead. When reading the book I asked myself, "What would motivate a person to choose such a painful and foolish path?"

Some religious views on evil have suggested that people are by default evil and unless there is intervention, their lives will exhibit evil. Or evil originated with Lucifer and began a war between good and evil that has spilled over to this planet. One Gnostic view suggests that the god of the Old Testament is an aberration that created a world that is evil.

If one were to ask "What would motivate any being to create evil?" I doubt any answer would make sense. I think the mystery of evil, if evil actually exists, is even more difficult than proving that God exists. It has become apparent that the results of evil actions not only destroy the victim, but also destroy the creator. In the Christian tradition Lucifer was the most advanced being in the universe and yet great power and intelligence seemed rather powerless to bring insight into the futility of evil.

One of the ideas that has been moving into my awareness is that people do evil things out of ignorance and/or the instinct for survival that often emerges in times of fear. If this is true, how do people come to these states of being? And how would one come out of these states? Is there a point where any attempt is hopeless?

In the doctors trials as a part of the Nuremberg trials, after World War II, some of the German scientists were so oblivious to the effect their experiments had on their subjects that they were wondering if they could complete their work. Many justified their actions as war time actions needed to help their soldiers survive. Or they saw nothing wrong with the painful experiments since their subjects were going to be executed anyway. These men didn't look evil, nor did they set out to be evil. Even at the moment of execution some of them still held to ideologies which convinced them of their innocence.

The one thing that really stands out for me in these rationalizations, is the lack of empathy for another person. Its evident that they didn't see their victims as human persons. It was evident, that for some, their ideology bent their ability to feel for another person. I can observe this same power of ideology to create suffering in radical Islamic suicide bombers or Christian crusaders or Stalin's revolutionaries. Or even closer to home, Abu Ghraib.

One of the dangers of rationalism is that once one makes a conclusion about the lack of value and humanity of an enemy or "other," most moral and empathetic restraints go away. Whether that rationalism is based on a holy book, spurious science, or a charismatic leader, it can still lead to terrible actions. The witch hunters of the middle ages saw their methods as the best that science and reason had to offer as contained in the Malleus Maleficarum.

I have come to believe that it is important to personally learn and to teach people how to feel skillfully. I believe that there is far more information and awareness in feeling than there is in thinking. Certain forms of rational debate can point out the absurdity of different beliefs, but this fails if the person lacks the intelligence to understand the argument. And yet even the most simple can recognize when they have been insulted. And it seems the most simple often understand when they are being loved and how to return love more skillfully than their "intelligent" counterparts. What I believe that is common to all definitions of evil is its evil because of its ability to cause suffering and destruction.

At the deepest level pain makes us aware that something harmful is happening. An awareness of the world around us makes us aware of pain in others. When we ignore this and rely only on that which appears to be logical or authoritative we have the potential of creating great harm. At the very least one should wait to discover why something is painful before proceeding to inflict it on someone. But if one isn't even aware of the feeling of pain, one wouldn't even pause to consider this information. As I have mentioned before in the philosophy of Jesus he refers to the awareness of pain in oneself as one basis of ethical behavior. The idea that we should do unto others as we would have them do to us. To me this is clearly a reference to the personal experiential feeling of being in the world. And yet so little is taught or encouraged in this realm of human awareness. The awareness of what it feels like to live in the world.

I think one of the dangers of our culture is our lack of appreciation for feelings. I can't think of an instance where having feelings ever harmed anyone. Actions certainly can harm people, but I don't believe that feelings can. Maybe a belief that feelings can harm may create a feeling of harm, but that is rooted in a cognitive process not a feeling one.

A couple examples of how we can teach that ideology is more important than our own sense of what is harmful can be found in the following videos. The first is a children's cartoon made by supporters of Hamas. This video shows a Hamas style lion King vanquishing rats characterized as Fatah. Or in this video they use a child's natural sense of injustice to implant an ideology. It is a video of the martyrdom of a Mickey Mouse like character.

Another example from a strict Calvinistic theology can be seen in this video. A little way into the video you can see a child singing a song about how God hates the world to the tune of Michael Jackson's We are the World.

These may seem extreme to some of you, but until recently, within a historical perspective, these would not seem unreasonable to large groups of people. Islamic extremists certainly are communicating to a large audience that agrees with them. You can see this revealed in some of the comments on these videos. On a smaller scale sayings within our culture reveal our condemnation of feelings. "Only babies cry." "You need to get over it." "I need to handle it." "I need to be strong." "He or she fell apart." Or someone had an emotional breakdown which simply means they cried. All these imply that having feelings is either a sign of weakness, mental instability, or irresponsibility. Often these feelings are the very vehicles of "getting over it." And they become blocked by judgements and cognitive "interventions" which have nothing to do with how the other person feels, but with our own discomfort with feeling.

So if there is evil present in the world, I believe it is simply another label for fear. When humanity is not valued maybe evil is based on the fear of being human.