Since we moved to Berkeley, some dormant religious impulses have manifested themselves. I grew up attending a very conservative Christian church, which I would not attend today. My soft spot for the much vilified "religious right"--whose tactics often drive me crazy too--comes from those days.
Here in Berkeley, as is no surprise, the churches are much more liberal. So this opened an opportunity, I thought, to enjoy the positive parts of church life--the community, the music, the sermons--without getting shunted down uncomfortable political paths.
This morning I attended the early service at St. Mark's Episcopal Church. It was an intimate gathering in the chapel, with no music. I listened to the readings, shook my neighbor's hand, and pondered the sermon. But I did not take Communion, because in the end I do not believe that Christianity is the only valid spiritual path or that Jesus died on a cross to redeem humanity's sins.
One perspective is "Take what you want and leave the rest." Maybe the sermon will have a few lessons you can apply later; perhaps you'll meet friendly and interesting people. But you can freely ignore whatever makes you uncomfortable--pick and choose, just like you would at the salad bar. [I can't take credit for the salad bar analogy--keep reading.]
This strikes me as way too easy. The rector at St. Mark's believes wholeheartedly in the Christian faith, as she should. It's an entire body of belief that has to hang together in order to mean anything at all. That's absolutist, I know, but it's also much more intellectually honest than salad bar religion.
So I won't be going back to St. Mark's, not because it's a bad place but because I have different beliefs (whatever those might be). If I church-hopped throughout Berkeley, this would always be the result.
After returning from St. Mark's, I put Google through the test to learn a bit about syncretism, "the combination of different forms of belief or practice." If Christianity is not the only valid spiritual path, then is a blending of the all the great religions the better way to go? Should I just become a Baha'i and be done with it? Or is this thinking just a magnified version of salad bar religion? I don't know the answers to these questions, except for a sneaking suspicion that my answer to the last question is "yes."
Through my Googling I learned that Erasmus is one of the forefathers of syncretic thought. From here it was just a few clicks away to the 2001 Erasmus Prize Essay by Claudio Magris, a contemporary giant of Italian literature. At first the essay seemed too dense; I tried to skim it, but soon realized that it deserved to be read in full.
Magris hits upon the core problem--How to live by firm convictions (such as those you would hold as an Episcopalian minister), while recognizing that other firm convictions are equally valid. What are the limits of tolerance in a pluralistic world? This is the question, and each of us must arrive at our own answers and draw our own lines. As a society, we have to do the same thing--to take just one example, this is why discussions about when "free speech" crosses the line "hate speech" become so vexed.
Here is Magris on salad bar religion: "What a philosophy or faith stands for is an organic unity, not a salad each of whose individual ingredients is an optional, something which one can add or not as one pleases."
I picked up a new word from Magris--laicality, "the state or quality of being laic; the state or condition of a layman."
Magris: "Laicality is not a philosophical subject but rather a mental habit, the ability to distinguish that which is rationally demonstrable from that which is, instead, the object of faith..." On that score, and in conclusion, here is Magris on the potential tyranny of rationalism (as evidenced, I would add, by the surge of fundamentalist atheist tracts that have appeared in recent years): "[R]eason runs the risk of degenerating into mere calculating rationality, a power-technique which recognises no values beyond facts."
I have no quarrels with making data-driven decisions, except that we have seduced yourselves into thinking that data to support every decision we make exists. Sometimes you have to take life on faith, even if that faith has nothing to do with church.
Recent Comments