Universal Life Church

Two Great Books about God

2010-02-22T14:40:00.000-08:00

For those of you who never tire of asking the hard questions about God, the Universal Life Church Monastery storehouse has two excellent new releases to for your perusal. Since it is part of our mission to open up discussions about religious issues and accommodate all perspectives, we are happy to present our ministers with two complementary works which will challenge, fascinate, and satisfy the reader, forcing them to explore their faith (or lack thereof) in greater depth and with an abundance of insight.

As its name suggests, The Atheist's Bible: an Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts is an invaluable handbook for those who seek an atheistic parallel to the world's sacred texts. As the Philadelphia Inquirer put it in their review of the book, "If atheism's going mass you need not just a sacred text but an easily portable one . . .". The Atheist's Bible is an ideal pick for those who seek vindication of their beliefs from an array of prominent thinkers in literature, philosophy, and the sciences. At the same time, the work provides an amusing and thought-provoking collection of atheist values, principles, and reflections. Like the Biblical book of Proverbs, the book consists of a series of pithy aphorisms which sum up some very big thoughts in just a few, short words. Among the more tongue-in-cheek musings to be found within this "sacred text" of atheism comes from British playwright Oscar Wilde, who says, When I think of all the harm [the bible] has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it, while Ralph Waldo Emerson muses, Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind.

As the book's title suggests, the quips found within are an unapologetic, no-holds-barred attempts to vindicate atheist faith. While some might regard these sayings as unpleasantly evangelical, this is the very effect desired by the editor, Joan Konner. An uncompromising declaration of non-theistic values, The Atheist's Bible is both a lighthearted read and a source of inspiration and affirmation for the questioning and skeptical mind.

If you are not settled on an atheistic world view, however, and are still searching for possible scientific justification for belief in God, Fingerprints of God: the Search for the Science of Spirituality, by National Public Radio correspondent Barbara Bradley Hagerty, is the perfect pick. Hagerty challenges the common belief in the incompatibility of science and spirituality, plumbing the depths of the scientific and religious communities in search of possible connections between science on one hand, and spiritual and mystical experience on the other. At one point, Hagerty relates her experience taking ayahuasca at a Navajo religious ceremony and discusses the hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine, considering the possible chemical basis for spiritual experience. She also considers biological predispositions for belief in God, searching for evidence of a "God gene". In addition to chemistry and biology, Hagerty explores the realm of physics and discusses how the phenomenon of quantum entanglement might allow for consciousness after death. Hagerty's objective and rational-minded foray into the sciences, how it may inform spiritual experience, and what it says about her own Christian faith, is a fascinating read for agnostic and believer alike.

Whether theist or non-theist, readers will find these two books an excellent way to get themselves thinking, re-affirm their beliefs, and encourage further discussion on this very provocative question. As such, they are ideal selections for inclusion in any minister's library. Visit the ULC Monastery storehouse to find out about more book releases and ministry supplies which will serve as valuable tools in your ministry and spiritual life.

Mass Wedding for Loveland, Colorado

2010-02-18T12:58:00.000-08:00

Modern weddings have increasingly been taking the form of mass weddings in recent months, and Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon has not been the only one to officiate weddings for multiple couples at the same time. Rev. Moon is known for match-making couples in "matching ceremonies" by pointing them out to one another, subsequently solemnizing weddings for the couples in massive assemblies, often located in large stadiums.

Many ministers with Universal Life Church and its derivative online churches have shown interest in this unconventional yet increasingly popular type of modern wedding ceremony.

This past Valentine's Day, nearly one hundred couples converged just outside Ptarmigan Roost Cabin, at an altitude of 12,050, in the Colorado ski resort of Loveland, as part of the 19th annual Valentine's Day Marry Me Ski Free Mountaintop Matrimony, either to be married or to renew wedding vows. One of the Universal Life Church's own ordained ministers, Harry Heilman, performed the ceremony. The crowds were drawn to the event by combination of Valentine's Day, the long Presidents' Day weekend, and fresh snow.

Are mass weddings a sign of the increasing degradation of the institution of marriage, or of its growing convenience and continued modernization? Perhaps this is too serious a question for so lighthearted an occasion, but it is nonetheless an interesting one to ask.

For some (and I won't say "yesterday's bride and groom", because many still feel this way), the unique nature of the traditional wedding ceremony consists in its emphasis on the public declaration of love between two people, on whom the eyes of the entire community, the church, and even God, are set. For the traditional bride and groom, the day is a special one because the entire event is focused on them—it is "their day", so to speak. But for other couples, the anonymity of the mass wedding is perhaps an outlet from the stress and anxiety that the ceremony itself places on bride and groom, an opportunity to eschew the old, burdensome trappings and melt into the crowd. Mass weddings like the Loveland event, furthermore, might even recall a primitive, communal urge to forget one's individuality and get lost in the crowd, as it were.

For others yet, it may simply be an easy, no-frills way to obtain legal benefits, rather like drive-through wedding chapel officiations—characterized by entirely practical considerations.

Will the mass wedding trend evolve into a kind of modern-day festival in which couples rebel against the staid and solemn ceremonies of a bygone era? At any rate, the increasing popularity of such events shows how rapidly the face of marriage is changing—from drive-through ceremonies to sky-dive wedding vow exchanges and same-sex unions. It may simply be the natural course of evolution for marriage, which is constantly metamorphosing and adapting to reflect the individual personalities of those being married. As marriage becomes less and less an instance of property exchange and alliance-building shrouded in awe-inspiring mystery, and more a legally sanctioned declaration of love, couples will be finding new ways to challenge what constitutes holy matrimony.

Perhaps events such as the Valentine's Day mass wedding at Loveland are just the forerunners of things to come.

Source:
Summit Daily News

Radio and TV Presenter, Ordained by Universal Life Church Monastery, to Broadcast Weddings On-Air

2010-02-18T12:54:00.000-08:00

Exactly what is the face of Universal Life Church Monastery's growing congregation of Christians, Buddhists, pagans, and myriad other faith groups? Not only does the church represent a wide variety of creeds, emphasizing the compatibility of these paths where they intersect, but also boasts a mix of members from highly diverse backgrounds, including film, television, and radio personalities alongside everyday individuals. The popularity of the church's accessible, egalitarian approach with celebrities recently became apparent once again with the online ordination of British radio and breakfast television show presenter Steve Penk, famous for his telephone prank calls.

Perhaps there is something intrinsically rebellious about the personalities of comedians, actors, and other media figures that draws them to unconventional online churches such as ULCM. Like many online church ministers, Penk, who was ordained by ULCM's presiding chaplain, Brother Martin, saw little use in following the traditional path of formal seminary training in order to earn his minister's ordination credential: "I didn’t have time to waste taking the traditional route to ordination, so I fast tracked it and got my licence through . . . ", he said on Radio Today. Like many online church minister, he has received interrogations, if not criticism, for the lack of required training to receive his credential. In response, he points out that the disciples of Jesus Christ were "nothing but ordinary guys with everyday jobs—like fishermen". Like other ministers with churches such as ULCM, Penk suggests that the sign of a worthy minister lies in a spark of personal passion and direct inspiration rather than in the official approval of a hierarchical body of clerics.

Further reflecting the unorthodox tendencies of online churches, Penk now intends to use his new credential to make marriage easier and more accessible for a wider range of hopeful couples. According to Radio Today, he is "aiming to become the first radio presenter to marry people live [on air]". In addition to marrying couples on-air, Penk has now begun hosting weddings in the function room of his radio station, The Revolution, situated in a former pub and club. Individuals like Penk have exploited modern technology and lifestyles to accommodate the traditional institution of marriage—not only will he be conducting his wedding ceremonies inside a radio station instead of a church building, but will also be broadcasting the vows of the couples he marries over the radio.

But can this approach to the sacrament of holy matrimony be considered irreverent, even "tacky"? This question may depend on what constitutes the "sanctity" of marriage. Historically, the institution of marriage has been controlled by ecclesiastical authorities who have shrouded it in a powerful mystique, rendering it somehow holy, sacred, or worthy in the eyes of God. In the present day, however, marriage has evolved into a private commitment between two individuals which does not require the approval of non-participants, and its high regard is based on much more practical considerations, such as legal benefits. Perhaps the truly special thing about marriage is not some hazy notion of divine approbation, but the understanding that it should be as accessible and practical as possible to all loving and committed couples, and that bride and groom (or whichever permutation one chooses) should have the option of choosing the wedding officiant of their preference to bless their union, whether friend, relative, or admired public figure. For some couples, eccentrics like Steve Penk fit the bill.

It has long been the commitment of ULCM to make it easier for individuals to legally marry or legally officiate weddings which reflect diverse and contemporary backgrounds, interests, and lifestyles. But, as always, we would like to hear what our ministers have to say. Does this approach to solemnizing marriages and performing wedding ceremonies degrade and dilute this venerable institution, or help it fulfill its noble function of legally recognizing loving relationships?

Religious Views on Sexual Morality

2010-02-15T16:59:00.001-08:00

The establishment of a sexual moral code has long been a major objective for the religions of the world, which generally seek to define for their followers a pure and virtuous pathway to communion with the divine. More recently, civil libertarians and those who advocate for church-state separation have criticized the role of religion in sexual affairs as interference in the private lives of citizens of a secular state. But if we grant that religious authorities have influenced the sexual activity of their followers, for better or worse, exactly what constitutes sexual virtue varies widely from faith to faith.

While most faiths have an opinion on the matter, some are more permissive than others about what kind of sex is deemed acceptable. More conservative denominations maintain that the function of sex is procreation and the rearing of children through the stability of lifelong, monogamous relationships; some even maintain that sexual pleasure is merely an incentive for reproduction rather than an aim in itself. As Meredith Heagney of The Columbus Dispatch notes, "Conservative denominations teach that sex is reserved for marriage. To them, that means one man and one woman, ideally for the purpose of creating children"; for Jason Evert, a public speaker on chastity, the "medical dangers of birth control" are just one of many motivations for staying chaste until marriage, when, presumably, the woman will suddenly become ready to perform her office as a "vessel of life". As people like Evert believe, it is in this procreative potential, and in its social and ecclesiastical approval through the sacrament of the traditional wedding ceremony, that sex has true spiritual significance.

But does this view treat sex and marriage as a mere breeding program (not to mention a means of property and inheritance exchange, and alliance-building) which excludes large segments of the population from the experience? After all, if the sole function of sex is procreation and child-rearing, it should be condemned among infertile couples, post-menopausal women, pre-marital couples (since the act is reserved for married couples) and couples who simply choose not to procreate, let alone homosexuals.

For more liberal faith groups, sex often serves a more relationship-centered than procreative function, and many progressive Christian denominations have taken this stance, especially in the Anglican Communion. As Heagney reports, at one Columbus, Ohio, church "with much more liberal theology, a group of lesbians was permitted to hold a sex-toy party because the pastor wanted them to have a safe place to talk about sexual pleasure". But, of course, sex toys do not help conceive, two women cannot reproduce with one another, and the minister her/himself acknowledges the reality of "sexual pleasure" among non-heterosexual, non-reproducing couples. Another conventionally ordained minister, Bishop Thomas E. Breidenthal of the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio, argues that the oft-quoted passage in Leviticus condemning homosexuality is meaningless outside its historical context, and that "same-sex unions can be just as faithful and holy as heterosexual ones"; as it happens, Briedenthal and his peers may soon begin to officiate weddings for same-sex couples when the diocese starts blessing such unions in April. What do the attitudes of institutions like the southern Ohio diocese say about the religious stance toward sex? Such churches often emphasize the "sacredness" of sex between loving, consenting adults, regardless of gender, legal status, or reproductive ability, as what is truly pleasing to God; they emphasize the intrinsic value of emotion and sensuality in sex rather than propagation of the species and the creation of little "family tribes", thus validating the relationships of couples who engage in sex for pleasure, and not reproduction.

Judaism at some point may have extolled the virtue of sexual pleasure as a pathway to, and a reflection of, the divine. For many Jews and Christians, the Song of Solomon attests to this view—moreover, the declarations of sensual delight in the book are not one-sided, from man to woman, but reciprocal, between woman and man, giving a rare glimpse into female experience of sexual pleasure: "As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste" (2:2-3). Perhaps because such passages are too risque and erotic, the Church has traditionally treated them as an allegory depicting the relationship between the almighty God (the husband) and the fallible church (the wife), downplaying the obvious avowal of sensual pleasure as well as the reciprocation of it between male and female equals. But if we put aside this later abstraction and look at the dialogue itself, it becomes clear that the Church has sanctioned a text in which the speakers exult in and nearly worship the delights of the flesh, paying little heed to the function of procreation.

Given that some churches stress the virtue of sex and marriage for procreation, and others, the merits of sensual pleasure, what should be the view of Universal Life Church Monastery? As an ecumenical, or universal, church, ULCM incorporates compatible beliefs from multiple religions, insofar as these do not condone harm of others, and this "live-and-let-live" doctrine allows for the potential virtue in any mutually consensual activity which leads to pleasure and not harm. Nevertheless, at ULCM we always invite our ministers to offer their opinions. What should be the attitude of the church towards sex and marriage? Let us know what you think by giving us your comments.

Sources:
The Columbus Dispatch
The Holy Bible (KJV)

Eco-Friendly Weddings

2010-02-11T16:14:00.000-08:00

Green may not be the first word that springs to mind as couples run through preliminary ideas how to make their wedding day truly special, but, taken figuratively, green can also refer to a wedding ceremony which reflects growing awareness of our impact on the environment. "Green buildings", "green energy", and "green products" are now common parlance among those of us seeking ways to live more ecologically conscious lives, so why not apply these same principles to the most special ceremony in every couple's life? A truly unique wedding experience can be an environmentally sound one as well as a statement on the part of bride and groom about their larger commitments and responsibilities.

Ohio natives and Seattle residents John and Allyson Lindsley have helped pave the way for others with helpful examples of a green wedding from their own eco-friendly, socially responsible wedding ceremony. It was not enough just to blow a wad of money on an unforgettable wedding bash; For John and Allyson, it was important to make sure that their money was being put to the best use possible:

When we realized we were potentially spending a lot of money for just one day, we wanted to be sure our dollars were going to the right places. To us that meant ensuring our wedding would have a soft environmental impact, and that our dollars were contributing to supporting fair trade.

One important aspect of a green wedding, as the Lindsleys note, is to support both the local and global communities through such practices as buying local or fair-trade products. To support the local economy, it is crucial to buy locally, and this requires research into local florists, bakers, tailors, stationers, and decorators; beer, wine, liquor, and coffee can be bought from local breweries, wineries, and roasters, bouquets, from local florists, and fresh produce, from local farms. When products do come from foreign locales, it is necessary to consider the ethicality of their production: wedding feast ingredients shipped in from foreign countries, for example, should be sustainably grown and come from growers who are fairly compensated for their labor. Sometimes, products available only from foreign producers can be bought wholesale at fair trade and then manufactured locally: Alyson Lindsley bought the raw silk for her and her mother's dresses at fair price from an Indian wholesaler and had the dresses made by a Portland, Oregon seamstress. It is also possible to support local businesses while also supporting their sustainable practices: the Lindsleys held their wedding reception at the Culinary Vegetable Institute, using their organically grown herbs and produce in their floral arrangements and bouquets.

The environmental impact of the wedding ceremony and reception can also be reduced by finding creative alternatives for things such as paper products and party favors. Published materials such as invitations and programs can be made of recycled paper; party favors can be an environmental investment rather than a disposable novelty. Instead of giving out traditional party favors, the Lindsleys donated to environmentalist organizations such as Oxfam Unwrapped, buying their guests gifts such as potted tree saplings to support the "Plant 100 trees" program, or potted flowers from local, sustainable growers—a great investment in any wedding guest's own garden.

In addition to considerations of fair trade, buying locally, and environmental friendliness, a green wedding ceremony can reflect an investment in the social

well-being of the community. Although many couples find they require their entire wedding savings for the ceremony and its attendant expenses, those who spend frugally will be left with a profit—couples can donate this to charity in collaboration with the church where the ceremony is held. The church where the Lindsleys held their ceremony, for example, donated the profits to children of the working poor and autistic education efforts.

While the most important step in planning an eco-friendly wedding is putting these principles into practice, it does not hurt to incorporate them into one's wedding vows too. Most churches have a long tradition of charity work, and an increasing number are recognizing their role as stewards of nature. A good idea is to work with the minister or wedding officiant to write vows which reflect the common commitment of bride and groom to social and environmental awareness.

There are an increasing number of green wedding resources for those seeking to leave a minimal carbon footprint with their wedding, and these include the following:

Planning a green wedding may at first seem a daunting task, but with the growing plethora of resources, it has become an almost natural consideration for contemporary couples seeking a modern wedding. Respect for nature has long been a central value of many in the Universal Life Church Monastery congregation, including those from earth-based faiths such as paganism and Wicca. Ecologically friendly practices are yet another, creative way that ULCM ministers, as well as the couples they marry, can show their dedication to social and environmental awareness.

Source:
Green Is Sexy

The Proposed French Veil Ban: Religious Oppression, or Women's Liberation?

2010-02-08T17:23:00.000-08:00

Here at Universal Life Church Monastery, we have been following closely the situation of Muslim minorities in Europe and looking at the conflict between Muslim and secular European values. In a recent post, we discussed the passage of a law banning minarets on mosques in Switzerland and what this might say about both freedom of religious expression and freedom from religious imposition. Now, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon has called on a collaboration between France's parliament and its top court, the State Council, to draft a law banning the full veil—the niqab and the burqa—in government-operated French public spaces.

Where exactly to draw the line between freedom of expression and imposition has posed a problem for the French government, which has had to consider the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. According to Agence French-Presse, the thirty-two-member commission seeking the State Council's help "stopped short . . . of calling for legislation to outlaw the burqa in the streets, shopping [centers] or other public venues after raising doubts about the constitutionality of such a move". Indeed, many parliamentarians have exercised great caution over the proposed law in order to avoid violating the very principles they are aiming to protect: supporters of the ban posit that the full veil is being used by radicals to insinuate an extremist form of Islam into French society, while others counter that very few Muslim women actually wear the full veil, and hence it poses little threat to the equality cherished by French society.

France is not the only country where the trend toward banning veils has been growing, however, and other western European democracies have followed suit. "The Netherlands and Austria", reports Agence French-Presse, "are considering a ban on the full veil, while Denmark said . . . it would limit the use in public of the burka and niqab veils although stopping short of an outright ban". Increasingly, the proposed bans seem to be serving as a sort of "baptism", "consecration", or initiation into secular European society, a backlash against the fundamentalism slowly pervading the European continent and diluting its endangered Enlightenment philosophy. But, inevitably, the constitutionality of such bans becomes questionable, and as more governments consider legislation restricting use of the full veil, greater specificity will be required to delineate between freedom of and from religion, insofar as such a distinction is a part of a given country's political tradition. (Not all secular democracies have the strict institutional separation of church and state that the U.S. has.)

How exactly the law protects women is not entirely clear. The French government's attempt at preserving traditionally French values by restricting the public exercise of religious belief—whether Protestant, Catholic, or Muslim—might create a contradiction in the eyes of critics, who warn against an equally evangelical secularism. After all, does a law truly protect women's rights if it dictates a woman's choice in dress? On one hand, politicians who endorse a ban on full veils by citing sex equality may in fact be challenging a woman's right to dress as she pleases; on the other hand, it is possible that women who wear the full veil do not choose to do so, but are coerced into doing so by male relatives. According to the BBC, the purpose of the parliamentary report backing the ban "is to make it as impractical as possible for women in face veils to go about their daily business", which, ironically, allows women very little liberty; however, the BBC also reports that the French government has refused citizenship to a foreign national because "he forced his wife to wear the full Islamic veil" and, according to Immigration Minister Eric Besson, "he was depriving his wife of the liberty to come and go with her face uncovered". Then there is the case of Faiza M, a Moroccan immigrant denied citizenship by the French government because, according to social services, she lived in "total submission to her male relatives". But one may argue that by denying Faiza citizenship to a country that protects women's rights, the French government has actually denied her a life of liberty. In such a case, is the French government liberating women, or oppressing them?

Organizations such as ULCM embrace both the contributions of diverse religious traditions and the full equality of women and men. Does this approach create a contradiction for churches like ULCM, and is it necessary to settle on a compromise between the accommodation of religious custom and sex equality? The Anglican Communion, for example, has attempted to resolve this problem within its own ranks by gradually eliminating patriarchal hierarchy and including women as priests while preserving the church's broader spiritual message. Perhaps it is possible to embrace a religion's essence while rejecting individual discriminatory practices within that religion; in this way, every religion still has its own unique, yet also universally applicable, values to contribute to the church. Feel free to share your thoughts on what stance progressive, ecumenical churches should take towards this question.

Sources:
BBC World News
The Vancouver Sun

DADT Repeal, Military Chaplaincies, and Religious Conscience

2010-02-05T15:26:00.000-08:00

For all of its appeals to individual freedom, equality, and "justice for all", the United States has often failed to serve as a model for the equality and justice it espouses, allowing other Western democracies to lead the way and demonstrate through active reform the very principles to which the U.S. only pays lip service. The slow-dying, discriminatory policies which linger on may not just affect minorities, but also members of majority groups, even ordained ministers at The Universal Life Church Monastery.

Slavery and anti-sodomy legislation serve as two illuminating examples how the United States has traditionally fallen behind the rest of the democratic world. While Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery throughout the empire in 1833, and while France (where slavery was never officially instituted) abolished the trade in its last outpost of Guadeloupe in 1848, it was not until 1865 that the U.S. finally followed suit with the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution; and while France repealed its sodomy law as early as 1791, Britain, Canada, and East and West Germany in the 1960s, and Australia in 1997, it was not until 2003 that the U.S. Supreme Court granted adult same-sex couples the right to engage in consensual sex in the privacy of their own homes. Even the Supreme Court of China—a country long criticized for its human rights violations—ruled in 1957 that consensual adult sex of any form was not a crime.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the United States stalwartly remains one of only a handful out of the twenty-eight NATO nations which bar gays, lesbians, and bisexuals serving openly in the military. At a recent U.S. Senate Defense Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Roberts Gates and Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen recommended the repeal of the United States's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which bans openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from military service, arguing that the policy, not sexual minorities, is what undermines military cohesion and promotes dishonesty in the service. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman and former secretary of state Colin Powell has echoed this recommendation, moving away from his original opinion in 1993, when he supported Bill Clinton's institution of the policy, that it was a "healthy compromise".

By its very terms, DADT also requires the penalization of servicemembers from inquiring about the homosexuality or bisexuality of their peers; consequently, military chaplains are proscribed from discussing these matters with those they counsel (let alone performing same-sex weddings). But does this proscription impinge upon religious freedoms as granted by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? A chaplain who feels the nagging responsibility to discuss the matter with a peer—whether in condemnation or affirmation—might argue that the issue of sexual orientation is a central concern of his or her church, and, that an official opinion on the matter is codified in the church's ecclesiastical proclamation of canon law, and that discussion of the church's stance on the sexual minority status of its members is a spiritual practice. To bar military personnel who belong to such a church from discussing the sexual orientation of other personnel would therefore constitute an infringement on the free exercise of religion.

At Universal Life Church Monastery, we are always seeking to open up the issues we cover to discussion among our members. What is your stance on the relationship between DADT and the free exercise of religion, and the apparent contradiction it entails? Are you, or is someone you know, an ordained ULCM minister who has served in the armed forces and who has either been penalized for discussing the homosexuality of fellow servicemembers or experienced unreasonable pressure to remain silent on the matter for fear of the consequences? Give us your thoughts.

Sources:
CNN
The Huffington Post
Wikipedia: Abolition of Slavery Timeline
Wikipedia: Sodomy Law

Wedding Vows for Every Type of Couple

2010-02-04T15:01:00.000-08:00

Traditional wedding vows have always expressed deep love and commitment and, often, the ties of families, social bonds, and, for monotheists, the approbation of God. Certainly, many individuals today perceive marriage as an institution originally set up to legally recognize the exchange of property and inheritance rights rather than to solemnize the commitment to romantic love. Nevertheless, such a commitment has become the central function of marriage, and the wedding vow, the primary mechanism for their public declaration. Traditional vows, however, have grown clichéd and stale for many modern-day couples, who seek to personalize their vows in order to reflect their unique backgrounds.

Diane Warner's Complete Book of Wedding Vows: Hundreds of Ways to Say "I Do" serves as a practical guide to choosing the most appropriate vows for the most non-traditional couples. As one of the largest compilations of wedding vows, minister and wedding planner, as well as bride and groom, will feel almost as if he or she has just entered a candy shop with boundless selection. Warner's massive list, however, consists not of etched-in-stone dictations, but of helpful suggestions—it is even possible to combine elements from different chapters of the book in order to custom-make one's own vows, depending on the composite of one's ethnic, social, and religious background.

Many of Warner's suggestions are non-traditional alternatives to such sexist and obsequious lines as "I . . . take you . . . to be my lawfully wedded husband . . . to honor and obey" and the paternalistic response, "I . . . take you . . . to be my lawfully wedded wife . . . to love and to cherish". Warner's guide takes into consideration divorcees and second marriages, widows, brides and grooms with children from previous marriages, and the more personal nature of the commitment which is coming to characterize modern-day marriage as a private affair. While many of the vows come out of the Judeo-Christian legacy, many others reflect the traditions of non-Abrahamic religions.

Warner's book is also a helpful guide for those who view marriage more as a practical than as a spiritual commitment yet who still wish to symbolize their commitment in the form of a wedding ceremony. With an understanding of the diversity of her readers and the many different types of marriages, Warner devotes an entire chapter to secular vows in order to accommodate atheists, agnostics, and other non-spiritual or non-religious individuals who nevertheless have an interest in the benefits of civil marriage.

Thus, whether one is divorced, divorced with children, widowed, "heathen", atheist, feminist, secular, or simply seeking creative alternatives to traditional declarations with which you may disagree or feel uncomfortable, the Complete Book of Wedding Vows is a veritable Bible of modern wedding vows, for planners, wedding officiants, and couples alike, which reflects the needs and interests of diverse, contemporary lifestyles.

DADT and Religious Bias in the Military

2010-02-03T16:15:00.001-08:00

Unlike states such as France, in which religious neutrality is preserved largely through secularism and a movement away from religiosity, the United States, through the First Amendment of its constitution, has maintained religious neutrality by accommodating all religions, as well as non-religion, by showing no preference for one over another; in the former approach, the state seeks to remove religion, or at least religious paraphernalia, from the public sphere, while in the latter, it seeks to enrich the public sphere with religious pluralism. One question remains, however: how far will the United States extend its commitment to religious neutrality when conflicts arise in the public sphere between religious conscience on one hand, and religiously neutral governmental and military duties on the other?

The U.S. Air Force Academy recently made a bold move to express its commitment to the unbiased accommodation of all religions represented within its ranks. The Academy recently moved a pair of stone circles, originally erected to provide cadets a space for relaxation, from a less stable site near its visitors center to a hilltop near the school's campus. Tech. Sgt. Brandon Longcrier, who identifies as pagan, discovered the site while searching for a place close to nature where he and his fellow pagans, druids, and Wiccans could commune and practice their rites. In response to the desire of these faith groups to find an appropriate site for their earth-based beliefs, the Academy, which has already provided worship places for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists, designated the site as an official "place of worship". According to Dan Elliott of The Huffington Post, the effort by the Air Force to provided worship sites for various religions follows in response to increased jokes and epithets among cadets directed at minority faith groups."[S]o far", Elliott reports Longcrier as saying, "we haven't had any real issues."

By inference, then, the Air Force must apply this same approach consistently with respect to all religious beliefs and practices which do not interfere with the civil and human rights of others. The Air Force may have succeeded so far in showing fairness and respect towards pagan, druid, and Wiccan cadets, but will it extrapolate its reasoning behind this to military chaplains who wish to discuss the homosexuality of the servicemembers they counsel, holding the religious conviction that a god or gods created homosexuals with same-sex preferences? The United States military is then presented with a contradiction between its own policies, between its accommodation of religious beliefs and its own sex-based discrimination. Currently, the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy proscribes its chaplains from discussing the subject as it pertains to the sexuality of other servicemembers, yet for some chaplains, the innateness of homosexuality is a doctrine of their faith, which must be engaged with unobstructed by the government; for them, it is a religious practice, hence a religious right, to counsel others with respect to their homosexuality.

The problem then becomes that the United States military has cherry-picked the religious rights of its servicemembers, patronizing some while discriminating against others, and has therefore violated the First Amendment injunction which requires the separation of church and state. As stated in its Ecclesiastical Proclamation of Canon Law, a part of Universal Life Church Monastery's mission is to defend freedom of religion where it does not impinge on the freedom of others, as well as the freedom from religion where it does. When a policy reflects an arbitrary bias toward some doctrines and a blind-eye toward others, it affects even ULCM members who wish to practice their beliefs unimpeded as chaplains in the military.

Do secularist states such as France provide an easier solution than pluralist states such as the U.S. to the problem of religious bias? Perhaps, but it is a long road to amending the Constitution in order to reflect the rejection of all religion, rather than the embrace of it, in the public sphere. Nevertheless, as long as the United States takes an "embrace all" stance, and as long as its military, whether knowingly or unknowingly, fails to reflect this principle by discriminating between which religious beliefs to accommodate, it is imperative for us to speak out against such hypocritical and discriminatory injustice.

Source: The Huffington Post

Marriage Equality and Republican Support: What Does It Mean to Be Conservative?

2010-02-02T12:55:00.000-08:00

Cindy McCain

In a highly bi-partisan nation such as the United States, it is easy to see how black-and-white, dualistic thinking might be inculcated into the minds of the people, and how it might form a fundamental—yet not necessarily intrinsic—component of the American ethos. Dualism objectively identifies an "other" to attack, it lacks the nuance which challenges tidily constructed categories, and it is easy to wrap one's head around—and there are plenty who would argue that the minds of young Americans have been numbed by neglect on the part of the educational system, not to mention the inane distractions of popular culture. Consequently, the two opposing forces in question are ascribed their own exclusive characteristics. So it is with U.S. politics, in which Republicans are decidedly conservative, and Democrats, liberal—at least by American standards. It comes as a surprise to many, then, that Theodore B. Olson, the Republican lawyer who won Bush v. Gore in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, is fighting in federal court to overturn Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative that banned gay marriage in California.

In a recent Newsweek article, Olson made the argument why marriage equality is a conservative concern—because it represents traditionally conservative values. As Olson himself notes, many members of his own party have expressed near-hostility towards the issue, possibly imagining the Supreme Court forcing ministers of every church, mosque, grove, and synagogue, from Christian to Muslim and beyond, to officiate at gay weddings (however, this seems like a far cry from reality considering constitutional protections for religious freedom). While this dissent within the Republican Party shows that the stereotypical conservative still exists, it also highlights the reality of the socially liberal Republican. In response to this backlash from his fellow conservatives against a civil rights issue which several European countries have long since handled, Olson argues, Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize [ . . . ] Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Such a surprisingly supportive attitude towards gay marriage certainly challenges dualistic preconceptions about the values of Republicans—for both conservatives and liberals. For Olson, to be conservative does not mean to cling blindly to outmoded, oppressive, irrational, and religiously dogmatic moral values, but to conserve those values which have consistently proved beneficial to society—and to support them in minority groups who would conserve them as well, even as these are embodied in a legally recognized wedding ceremony. Certainly, such an unexpected attitude is a relief for gay rights supporters, who have lately viewed Obama as more of a clever rhetorician than a true advocate, and Democrats as feeble and spineless.

In fact, Republican supporters of gay marriage seem to be popping up everywhere. In dissent from the opinion of her husband, 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Cindy McCain and their daughter, Meghan, showed their support for marriage equality by posing for NOH8, a photograph project by Adam Bouska and Jeff Parshley which campaigns against Proposition 8. Even in some traditionally authoritarian regimes which have sought to exterminate political or social outcasts, unexpected changes have taken place. In Cuba, where the Communist regime had been sending homosexuals to work camps as recently as the 1970s, niece of Fidel Castro and gay rights activist Mariela Castro "led hundreds of Cuban gays in a street dance [in Havana] Saturday to draw attention to gay rights on the island". (If Olson, being thus far the lone male, affirms any stereotype, perhaps it is that women—even the Republicans and Communists among them—really are more liberal than men.)

Maybe Olson is right about conservative values, and maybe the wedding vows which lesbians and gay men exchange mark the same solemn declaration that, as Olson states, constitutes "one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and [the American] nation", and, increasingly, even a divine sacrament for the country's vast number of pious church-goers. If Olson's stance on the meaning of "holy matrimony" is valid, procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient to define the institution of marriage—for the human race is not in decline, and marriage is not a breeding program. For a "true" conservative, he suggests, marriage is far more than a soulless mechanism for propagation of the species; it is the fair distribution of rights among those who show the same love and companionship which make safe and happy communities. Of course, even if same-sex marriage did in some oblique, scarcely fathomable way affect heterosexual marriage, it would, from Olson's perspective, be in exactly this way: not to undermine it, but to enrich it.

Images:
New York Times
NoH8 Campaign

Sources:
Newsweek
San Francisco Chronicle

Tax Time: the IRS Fourteen Points

2010-02-01T12:12:00.000-08:00

Tax time approaches. In some of our past entries here at the ULCM blog, we have posed the question what really defines a church. While it has been extremely challenging for the U.S. federal government to constrain the definition of church so as to restrict the average person from becoming an ordained minister—especially through such unconventional organizations as the online church—the Internal Revenue Service has its own list of fourteen criteria which it adopted in De La Salle v. United States, and which it uses to determine whether a given organization may be classified as a church.

The fourteen points which the IRS considers covers a wide range of notions, such as legal status, beliefs and practices, clerical activity, the characteristics of congregations and worship services, church government, and ministry education and training. While these general considerations may seem foggy and indefinite, the IRS has dissolved them into the following criteria:

1. Distinct legal existence
2. Recognized creed and form of worship
3. Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
4. Formal code of doctrine and discipline
5. Distinct religious history
6. A membership not associated with any other church or denomination
7. An organization of ordained ministers
8. Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies
9. Literature of its own
10. Established places of worship
11. Regular congregations
12. Regular religious services
13. Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young
14. Schools for the preparation of its ministers

Of course, upon reviewing these points, the average ULCM minister may become distressed and ask herself whether her church meets such specific and restrictive criteria. The definiteness of the IRS Fourteen Points should not be cause for concern, however, since what defines a church cannot be restricted solely to these criteria, according to a scholarly analysis by Robert Louthian and Thomas Miller. As Louthian and Miller warn, "Given the variety of religious practice . . . attempts to use a dogmatic numerical approach might unconstitutionally favor established churches at the expense of newer, less traditional institutions". This observation helps us understand that the Fourteen Points might show a bias toward well known, well established churches the rituals, creeds, and laws of which are in some manner more "quantifiable" than those of more nascent religions.

Trying to quantify religion is a dicey issue and deserves scrutiny. Nevertheless, until this disconnect between the IRS Fourteen Points and the more liberal federal U.S. government's stance toward the definition of religion is resolved, we at Universal Life Church Monastery like to err on the side of caution and advise our clergy to use the Fourteen Points as a guide for churches and non-profit organizations. Please keep in mind that this is a pragmatic recommendation, and not a theoretical endorsement of the arbitrary and discriminatory practices of the Fourteen Points.

The "Bulldozer" Revives Jesus Miracle Site—Without a Crusade

2010-01-29T17:28:00.000-08:00

What is an Arab Christian cleric to do when his congregation has been steadily diminishing amid a tide of Muslim Arab refugees and immigrants? At first the situation sounds like the perfect recipe for brewing religious conflict—while Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is predominantly Jewish it also has a significant Arab minority of 1.4 million, yet within this minority group exists yet a smaller, more vulnerable one—123,000 Arab Christians. Despite the numbers, Father Masoud Abu Hatoum, known informally as "the bulldozer" for his enthusiasm, has found light-hearted and diplomatic ways to revive the dwindling Christian community of Kufr Kana (the Biblical Cana), where it is traditionally believed that Jesus turned water into wine, without taking the traditional approach of proclaiming holy war on invading "infidels".

Most of the Christians leaving Kufr Kana are young; in order to escape "boring" village life and find better employment, they have moved away to larger towns such as Nazareth and Tiberias, and especially the thriving coastal cities of Haifa and Tel Aviv, "which offer bigger Christian communities, more jobs and better marriage prospects", reports Diaa Hadid of WTOP radio station. According to Hadid, "Kufr Kana was entirely Christian at the beginning of the 20th century, but Muslims began settling in the village first as traders, and then as refugees fleeing fighting during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, locals said. Now the village is home to 16,000 Muslims and 4,000 Christians." Churches in the village see Sunday attendance faltering at twenty to a couple dozen, and most of these congregation members consist of the middle-aged and elderly.

Such emigration of young congregation members is, of course, difficult to stem, and it is a challenge to re-invent stale and traditional sermons and ceremonies to make these relevant to increasingly cynical and practical youths, let alone to persuade them to choose their religious community over employment opportunities in the secular world. Of course, if Abu Hatoum's re-invention of his congregation proves amusing enough to retain and even attract creative types, it could mean the blossoming of an alternative, even bohemian, Christian "pilgrimage" site, and a new facet to the village's tourist economy.

In an attempt to keep young Christians in town, therefore, the priest has adopted a strategy to make worship in the village more entertaining, exploit its reputation as the site where Jesus turned water into wine, and re-invigorate its image as a vibrant Christian community. One Christmas, the priest constructed a ninety-foot-tall framework of a Christmas tree, billing it as the tallest Christmas tree in the Holy Land, which, according to Hadid, attracted an Israeli television crew and earned Abu Hatoum a segment on a local radio show. The priest plans to perform a summer pageant at his church portraying Jesus' water-into-wine miracle, then to officiate over a mass wedding there in October. Already, with the fame Abu Hatoum has garnered for his efforts, the village church has shown signs of a transformation into a rather quirky destination featuring an off-the-wall, alternative variety of Christian worship.

Is Abu Hatoum's attempt to revive his community a sign of irreverence for Christianity? Could it even be labeled tacky? It is widely understood that the early Church made well calculated attempts to incorporate ancient pagan worship sites into newly built churches to attract potential converts and enlarge their "flock". It is a far more peaceful effort, moreover, than to take a belligerent stance and attempt to "save" Christian holy sites from the "faithless"—even the Crusades could backfire on Christendom, as during the Fourth Crusade of 1202-1204, when Crusaders attacked and sacked the fellow Christian cities of the Catholic port of Zara, in Dalmatia, and the mighty Greek Orthodox capitol of Byzantium, Constantinople, merely in return for funding of their expedition to Egypt, which never happened anyway.

As Hadid reports, "Relations with Muslims" in Kufr Kana "tend to be cool but polite", and the delicate and complex interrelationships among religions in the area persist. And Abu Hatoum's gigantic, wood-framed Christmas tree, summer pageant on Jesus turning water into wine, and mass wedding ceremony—with all their quirks, kitsch, and newfangled amusements to lure young people and Christian tourists—do offer a more peaceful, laissez-faire, economically inventive option for re-asserting a Christian presence in shrinking Christian communities. Indeed, they are a sorely needed example of levity and maintenance of religious harmony in a perennially strife-ridden region of the world.

Source & Image: WTOP

The Spiritual Benefits of Private Altars

2010-01-28T14:54:00.000-08:00

Which is lacking more in our everyday spiritual practice? Content, or formality? The answer may depend on your religious background.

Many of us who grew up in contemporary U.S. Protestant denominations and were later exposed to high Anglican or Roman Catholic practices have noticed the astonishing lack of performance-based ritual in their own traditions. Of course, the first Protestants believed their grievances just in railing against such Catholic traditions as plenary indulgences, priest as mediator between God and lay-member, ecclesiastical material excess, etc. But then along came the puritans, who smashed stained-glass windows and painted over frescoed church walls, and the Calvinists, who preached success through discipline and self-denial as proof of one's divine favor. Somehow, as the Protestant and Catholic paths diverged, the Protestant attack on such fetishes as holy water, anointing oil, transubstantiation, etc., left little room left for religious performance and resulted in a ritual-impoverished church. The priest was replaced by a minister preaching the infallible "word of God", and the altar, by a pulpit.

For those Protestants who have felt this ritual poverty in the stale and dull environs of their own churches, it is almost like replacing a fireplace with a television set. While in the Catholic Church priests may have mediated God's messages for their laity, the laity at least had the opportunity to participate in physical, substantive rituals which rendered their observances more concrete; in many Protestant churches, however, the most inspiring formality consists of partaking in Communion through the ingestion of crackers and grape juice. Scores of Protestant ministers will undoubtedly stress the centrality of preaching abstract theological messages for silent, detached congregation members to absorb and contemplate; for many, however, such nebulous, invisible contemplation is unsatisfactory, and the message is more succinctly symbolized, and fully realized, through participation in physical ritual. Perhaps "magic"—what skeptics might call "superstition"—is the missing element.

How, then, do we "take back the altar"?

In her blog The Wandering Lantern, priestess and Universal Life Church minister Ember K. Miller gives suggestions on the many ways in which one can build a private altar in the home to help make their beliefs and practices more physically potent and meaningful. An altar can be created for any religion, she notes, including "serene Catholic shrines, vibrant Hindu shrines, simple college [sic] altars to the elements, elaborate Samhain altars, expansive Voudoun / Hoodoun work spaces", and "elegant Etruscan altars". It need not even directly involve magic or religion, but can consist of "a small shrine set up for a departed pet, or a simple stone next to a pen for a writing altar, or candles and flowers near the bird bath outside to honor the coming of [S]pring". The point is that the altar reflects one's unique personality or path. Often this incorporates symbols of the "four" elements which help ground one in the physical environment, e.g. a fountain for water, a bell for air, an incense stick for fire, or a plant, such as a flower, for earth.

What is striking about this type of observance is its similarity to the Christian sacraments—most notably, the Eucharist, in which participants are summoned to the altar to partake in bread and wine transubstantiated into the "blood" and "flesh" of Christ. The fact that traditional Roman Catholics as well as animists and many pagans believe in the mysterious power of ritual objects demonstrates the versatility and relevance of home altars. However, whether or not one believes in the magical or consecratory properties of holy water, incense, smudging sage, photographs, etc., physical spaces and objects can have a very practical effect: they help frame and concentrate one's inner thoughts and establish their reality in the everyday world, even if this functions as a mere mnemonic device or psychosomatic effect.

Perhaps this is why highly organized dances, processions, and divination techniques are integral to the ceremonies of many pre-industrial ecstatic traditions: ritual may in fact manifest beliefs, hopes, or dreams in physical reality. It is a highly esoteric question, but, then, religion is a highly mysterious creature.

Image: Wiccan Altars

Source: The Wandering Lantern

A "First" for Malawi Weddings Leads to Imprisonment

2010-01-22T16:58:00.000-08:00

Revolutions in marriage and the performance of wedding rites seem to be popping up all over the globe at present, not only with the legalization of same-sex marriage in countries such as Portugal as well as the current lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 in the United States, but also in traditional bastions of sexual conservatism such as Malawi. The bold moves on the part of marriage pioneers remain dangerous, however, as they are met with legal backlashes by governments banning homosexuality and demographic majorities fearful of a "dilution" of the definition of marriage.

The controversy surrounding Steven Monjeza and his partner, Tiwonge Chimbalanga, both of Malawi, exemplifies this precarious interplay between government and constitutional law on one hand, and recalcitrant grassroots activism on the other. Not that these two men are activists; indeed, all they wanted to do was solemnize their love for one another. This is precisely what they did when they held a symbolic wedding ceremony late last year to show their love and commitment to one another, the first such action in the history of this poor southeast African nation. The effect of their public ceremony, however, had an effect similar to that of a protest—on December 28th, local authorities arrested the couple for homosexuality.

What is perhaps most remarkable about the case for prejudiced Western readers is the velocity with which Monjeza and Chimbalanga's lawyers mounted a challenge to Malawi's ban on homosexuality. The two men's legal team has asked for the case to be reviewed before the Constitutional Court, citing Malawi's Republican Constitution banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation—itself only a recent legal achievement in the United States—and while the presiding judge, Judge Nyakwawa Usiwausiwa, stated that a constitutional review at a higher judicial level was possible, he has said he will continue with the case for the time being. The rapid leap in Malawi from bans on "indecent behavior" to constitutional challenges against such bans is a striking development, undoubtedly due in part to pressure from humanitarian organizations with wedding law reform as an ultimate agenda: Amnesty International UK director Kate Allen condemned the "criminalization" of homosexuality in Malawi as well as the "appalling" treatment of Monjeza and Chimbalanga in prison, where authorities placed them allegedly to protect them from "mob attack".

Admittedly, it was the ban on homosexuality that Monjeza and Chimbalanga's legal team challenged, and not the legality of gay marriage there. However, the men's imprisonment for homosexuality did stem from their matrimony. Monjeza and Chimbalanga themselves took a significant step forward in challenging attitudes about marriage in Malawi by having a public wedding ceremony, suggesting the emergence of outright social defiance of the taboo against unions such as theirs.

As nations increasingly reach parity with one another over the right of couples such as Monjeza and Chimbalanga to wed, as well as the right of their loved ones to solemnize their vows as qualified and ordained ministers, very real humanitarian problems arise in the ensuing struggle. In order to avoid disaster, a balance must somehow be struck between pioneering efforts at change on one hand, and sensitivity to the delicate humanitarian implications on the other. Sometimes this may require working within the system to change it; other times, this approach simply constitutes a form of co-optation. Online churches such as Universal Life Church Monastery can play an instrumental role in the transition from exclusivist and discriminatory marriage laws to a fairer, more just system by opening up a forum for debate and continuing to challenge beliefs.

Source: Pink News

Consecrated Laptops: Exploring Twenty-first Century Liturgy

2010-01-20T15:42:00.000-08:00

What sort of innovation illustrates the adaptability of the church to everyday life in the twenty-first century? In a previous post below on the increasingly prominent roles of women and minorities in the Anglican Communion, we showed how it was possible for the Communion to modernize its traditions in order to remain relevant to its diverse congregations in the present day. The Church of England in particular has not stopped here, but has moved a step further in this modernization process by updating Plow Monday—a holiday dating from the Middle Ages that marks the first Monday after Twelfth Night (the Eve of Epiphany)—to include the consecration of laptop computers and mobile telephones brought in by congregation members.

Will Pavia of London's The Times reports on efforts by the English Church to incorporate the blessing of modern technology, including ubiquitous Apple products such as the smart phone, into its centuries-old liturgy. The Church's willingness to adapt is evident, as Pavia reports, since "none had been brave enough to adapt its ceremonies to address the modern mysteries of 3G network coverage, iPhone apps and variable battery life" before the new liturgy was held January 11th at St. Lawrence Jewry in the City of London Corporation. Part of St. Lawrence's success in this endeavor is due to Canon Parrott, who exhibits a charisma and dynamism absent in many of England's quickly-emptying churches. "In his former parish", Pavia reports, "he once dressed up as a Christmas tree to promote the message of Christmas".

At first, this novel practice may appear to many as bizarre, newfangled, and even irreverent, as though the timeless character of the liturgy has been diluted. But this rite may not seem so bizarre as one might first think. In the Middle Ages, Pavia notes, laborers would commemorate Plow Monday by bringing their plows to the church door and leaving them there to be blessed by the clergy. Thus, ecclesiastical adaptation to modern-day needs and interests is not a new phenomenon; the Church (at that time the Universal Church, since the English Church had not yet been established) has long been appealing to its laity with innovations which would have been highly personal for, and contemporary with, them.

Why do congregation members bring their plows and laptops to church to be blessed? The ritual may have deeper and more anthropologically significant roots than we imagine. The Catholic Church, for example, has been a traditional exponent of the doctrine of transubstantiation, in which worshippers partaking in the Eucharist literally believe they are consuming bread and wine which have been alchemically changed through incantations into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. This, along with the consecration of holy water and myriad other Catholic sacraments, is not terribly different from the ceremonies of pre-industrial cultures in which participants engaged in drumming, dance, and chant to bring rain or a good harvest, or to ward off disease. Both might be considered forms of imitative magic, in which the mimicry of an event brings that event into reality.

As long as traditional practices such as imitative magic form a fundamental aspect of religion, it seems appropriate that the church should adapt them into a modern-day context. And the current rapid advances in technology cannot be excluded from traditional ceremony. Online churches such as Universal Life Church Monastery, with their discussion forums, online sermons, and non-traditional methods of ordination, are one example how the church has incorporated modern technology—particularly the internet—into its traditional rites, services, and ceremonies. As the world becomes increasingly more interconnected, these modernizing methods will become instrumental in helping congregation members and burgeoning spiritual adepts to become involved in the clergy, exchange ideas, and minister to the underprivileged.

Image and Source: The Times

Ordination Rights and the Definition of Religion

2010-01-15T12:48:00.000-08:00

The issue of how to define religion came to the forefront of the news in Clay County, Minnesota, Sunday, where a new $20 fee was instituted for all filing of ordination credentials with the county. While the new fee reverses the long-established trend of charging no fee for the filing of ordination credentials, the action refrains from constraining the definition of eligible religions to mainline Christian traditions, reflecting protections granted by the First Amendment.

While this move is good news for those of us who invoke the First Amendment in defending freedom of and from religion, it illustrates the controversial status of many minority religions as well as the potential of an unconstitutional bias towards mainline churches which squeezes smaller religions out of the picture. Clearly, many of the laws which govern the United States are not in place to cater to the majority, but rather to protect the minority in affairs which do not involve the majority, and this fact is what stirs the ire in many critics of minority-faith clergy, including atheists, who get the go-ahead to file their ordination credentials.

The controversial nature of clergy from myriad faiths filing their credentials alongside Catholics and Protestants is highlighted by the fact that Clay County Recorder Bonnie Rehder was forced to pose the rhetorical question, "Who are we to say which religion is legitimate and which one isn't?" according to Dave Olson of INFORUM. The objections many mainline churches have towards these credential filings reflect an apprehension over the ease and accessibility of the ordination process in the associated churches. As Olson reports, "In 2009, about a dozen people filed credentials that appeared to come from Web sites like the one maintained by the Universal Life Church of California, which issues credentials after asking for a minimum of information from would-be ministers." Clergy belonging to mainline churches might understandably feel offended by Clay County honoring these easily-obtained credentials, considering the long and arduous academic work such clergy take on in their own churches to qualify as a legally ordained minister. However, the First Amendment does not define a religion as an organization in which prospective ministers must undergo rigorous academic training to earn their ordination credential.

Indeed, the definition of a valid, qualifying organization whose clergy apply to have their credentials filed is rather murky and amorphous. As Olson reports, "Rehder said workers [who file credentials in Clay County or anywhere else] have no means of challenging the legitimacy of someone’s religion, a term whose meaning, she said, is hard to pin down". But perhaps such amorphousness in the definition of religion allows traditionally overlooked or marginalized groups the legal right to do ministerial work, as perform wedding ceremonies, for those who reject mainline churches and their doctrines. One example is that of Charles Kesler, an atheist who filed his credential from the Universal Life Church Web site with Clay County. "My main motivation", Olson reports Kesler as saying, "was friends and associates that wanted to get married, but don’t really follow the Roman Catholic or Christian ways". Atheists such as Kesler merely seek the right to perform wedding ceremonies through a non-denominational religion, which, of course, the United States federal government cannot invalidate without violating the religious neutrality dictated by the First Amendment.

Even if Kesler did not go through Universal Life Church to obtain his ordination credential, atheism itself may qualify as a religion anyway: as David Rosman suggests in his column in the Columbia Missourian, atheism is " a theological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological phenomenon of human kind", meeting the criterion of religion formulated by religious philosopher and blogger Kile Jones. Thus, any jurisdiction, and not just the tiny county of Clay, would have to recognize an ordination credential from an atheist organization as well as, for example, an evangelical Christian one.

It is a relief that we still have the First Amendment in place to settle this potential problem for us once and for all. Being a non-denominational and ecumenical church, Universal Life Church Monastery understands the rights of ordained ministers to perform their work regardless of which religion they subscribe to. The fact that non-traditional ordination still ruffles the feathers of more conservative churches forces us to maintain vigilantly that every church has the right to recognize its ministers as it chooses, and that such individuals qualify equally with any other to perform legally the rites of his or her church.

Sources:
Inforum
Columbia Missourian

Women, Minorities, and the Changing Anglican Priesthood

2010-01-08T15:24:00.000-08:00

It may at first seem ironic that an institution founded by a man and traditionally dominated by men—the Church of England—is currently headed by a woman, Elizabeth II. And while the individual churches within the Anglican Communion are officially independent of their Mother Church, each has inherited a deep-seated legacy of bias against the executive power of women and sexual minorities. This tradition has been changing, since the ordination of women as priests has become commonplace in many Communion churches. Albeit not without controversy, Anglican—and even some Catholic—clergy have begun to view the church not as a rigidly unchanging authority founded on fixed doctrine, but as a fluid, flexible institution inspired by universal principles. Still, women—especially homosexuals—hold few bishoprics and archbishoprics. Thus, while change is afoot in Anglican churches and, to a much lesser extent, the Catholic Church, much progress has to be made in the struggle to realize equality for all church members.

The gradual shift in the Anglican church to a less patriarchal system took an important step in Perth, Australia, when the Diocese of Perth appointed Australia's first female bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, in 2008. In a decision that recalls the controversial decisions of many lower-level U.S. "activist" judges on the constitutionality of marriage equality, the diocese ruled that "nothing in its constitution could stop the consecration of a female bishop", rejecting concerns that "the appointment of Australia's first female bishop will cause division within its ranks", according to Australia's ABC News. Indeed, appointment of female bishops is a relatively well established practice which has failed to lead to any sort of schism, as Goldsworthy herself reminds us: "'There have been female bishops for 20 years, bishops who are women for 20 years, in churches all around the world, and it has not fractured the [C]ommunion'". Indeed, the erosion of patriarchy and racism within the Anglican church took yet another, highly significant, step forward when a Hispanic female bishop, Right Rev. Bavi Edna Rivera (a provisional bishop from eastern Oregon), ordained another woman, the second female priest in the Diocese of Fort Worth on Friday, just a month after the ordination of that diocese's first female priest, reports Jim Jones of the Star-Telegram.

Nevertheless, the slow-dying controversy surrounding the appointment of higher-tier women clergy sparks to life once again when it becomes known that that woman is also homosexual. The lingering prejudice against sexual minorities, even in the Communion, became evident in 2003 with the election of the Right Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. According to Larry Stamer of the LA Times, "Robinson's election threw the Episcopal Church and the global Anglican Communion into an uproar, leading to decisions by some conservative parishes and dioceses to leave the [U.S. Anglican] church and resulting in a de facto ban on the election of additional gay bishops". However, even this prejudice is slowly decaying: Stamer also reports in the same article that last month, following the recent lifting of the ban, the Diocese of Los Angeles elected as bishop the Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool, who is not only a woman, but also an open lesbian. The fact that the Anglican Communion has been moving away from male domination and homophobia is perhaps exactly why it may survive longer as a church in the future.

But imagine if authorities in a more centralized church, such as the Catholic Church, took a similarly progressive stance, threatening division within that ancient institution; the question then becomes whether or not a system which marginalizes over half its followers is worth preserving in the first place. Should women and sexual minorities be supporting such a system, or should they be working within it to change it? At least in the Anglican Communion, these groups have shown that change from within is possible, and that the church can prove itself a relevant, adaptable entity rather than an archaic regime mired in strict Biblical doctrine.

If we are to defer to Biblical texts, however, even the infamously misogynistic Apostle Paul ironically admits in Galatians 3:28 (KJV), "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." It is therefore the responsibility of ecumenical churches, such as Universal Life Church Monastery, to offer its egalitarian structure as a model for the modern-day, color-blind and gender-blind church.

Sources:
ABC News
Los Angeles Times

The Unification Church: Mass-Wedding Cult, or Growing Spiritual Haven?

2010-01-07T14:43:00.000-08:00

Since its founding by Rev. Sun Myung Moon in Seoul in 1954, The Unification Church, known originally as The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (HSA-UWC), has both inspired those who seek a close-knit religious community and roused suspicion in those who criticize it for its "cult-like" characteristics. While some point out Moon's tenet of exogamy as a form of peacemaking, others challenge his claim to be the Messiah, as well as the Church's mass-weddings and "matching ceremonies", performed by Moon with the belief that commitment precedes love in marriage. The Unification Church is one religion which, arguably, teeters precariously on the fence between cult and struggling minority faith.

These differing attitudes towards the growing Church become evident in a Washington Post article by Michelle Boorstein, who discusses how younger generations of Unificationists have had to decide whether to abide by the traditional tenets of Unificationism or adapt to mainstream society in order to keep their church thriving. The children of the mass-weddings of the 1970s and 1980s, she shows, have very mixed attitudes, with some practicing a more metamorphic, flexible form of the religion and others showing an almost evangelical devotion to fixed doctrine. Often, these attitudes reflect devotion either to an isolated, stolid, cult-like religion, or to a more compromising, mainstream one.

Perhaps the more orthodox, palatable practices of Unificationism for mainstream society include its earlier 1980s grass-roots, "revolutionary" activity, in which "thousands of young people . . . ditched their educations, careers and families to live out of vans", Boorstein reports, and "sell flowers at airports". In some ways, such activities resemble familiar revolutionary movements such as the hippie movement, in which well-meaning youths seek to shed what they see as burdens of a conformist culture. Meanwhile, "[p]arents can now use Web sites with photos and biographical information to search for a suitable spouse", showing the internet savvy of modern Unificationists. Moreover, Moon's promotion of interracial and intercultural marriage as a form of peacemaking shows initiative in the struggle to change irrational opinions about miscegenation and create racial harmony. (At the very least, it helps prevent inbreeding.) And Moon himself, as the Church's chief hierophant, has shown at least some flexibility with respect to church custom: in 2001, he announced that "parents could match their own children", whereas previously Moon himself had matched couples by pointing them out to one another in his wedding ceremonies.

It is this fact, however, that makes some critics of the Church squirm in their seats. According to church officials, Moon did not make a retraction; rather, the change in custom regarding the matching ceremonies was "a natural evolution of Unificationist theology, one that sees Moon as a parent . . . who establishes rules and lineage and now is passing the parental responsibility of matchmaking to individual mothers and fathers". Critics might argue, though, that this is just a convenient euphemism to excuse arranged marriage among the masses, a mere throwback to the days when marriage constituted an exchange of property (including women, such as the "peace-weavers" of Anglo-Saxon England) between tribes in order to create alliances, and nothing whatever to do with a private contract of love between two people. It is easy to see how this matchmaking practice reflects a larger tribal or familial manipulation of marriage to fulfill social and political ends, despite the argument that the private union of two individuals is nobody else's business. Probably the most irksome claim of the Church for critics, however, is Moon's claim to be the Messiah, or perhaps an avatar of sorts. After all, as Massimo Introvigne notes in The Unification Church: Studies in Contemporary Religion, the global population of Unificationists stands at about 250,000, and, according to B. A. Robinson of Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, these are concentrated in South Korea and Japan. So it is rather discouraging to think that any profound teachings of Moon should remain so obscure.

But perhaps the Unification Church, which Boorstein suggests has shown enough adaptability to survive long-term, will reflect a similar path to that of Christianity, starting from a local cult and burgeoning into a worldwide "flock". The looming threat of this, of course, is the evolution of the church from a grass-roots, egalitarian religion to a centralized, hierarchical one. As Barbara Ehrenreich notes in Dancing in the Streets: A History of Collective Joy, "[s]ocial scientists of the twentieth century have tended to portray the early Church's assault on ecstatic, or even festive, forms of worship as part of an inevitable process of maturation" (p. 74). In other words, the Unification Church could transform from a small and alluring sect into a menacingly dictatorial behemoth. At any rate, the new generation of Unificationists will have to decide between the unique offerings of an uncompromisingly isolationist path, or the convenience of a popular, "normal" church.

Sources:

Dancing in the Streets

ReligiousTolerance.org

Signature Books

Washington Post

Farewell Br. Daniel Brooks Chapin, Vice-President of Universal Life Church Monastery, and Welcome Br. Bruce Taylor

2010-01-04T12:11:00.000-08:00

Few individuals have shown as much hard work, expertise, and dedication to bringing happiness and opportunity to their fellow human being as Br. Daniel Brooks Chapin. Not only has Br. Chapin proved his selfless devotion to others by providing services to those suffering from mental trauma, but he has also participated in the advancement of social justice causes. Using his pastoral training background, he has applied the principles of civil justice in his role as officiant at many non-denominational wedding ceremonies and has continued these laudable efforts here at Universal Life Church Monastery. It is with great compassion and gratitude, therefore, that we watch him leave his post as Vice-President at the Church to grieve the recent passing of his mother, and to return home to care for his ailing father.

Throughout his career, Br. Chapin has successfully combined his natural altruism with real-life experience as well as rigorous training in various fields in order to better effect social change. Demonstrating his concern for the mental well-being of others, he attended the American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress as well as the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation, where he became board certified in acute traumatic and critical incident stress management, the knowledge of which he applied as Rehabilitation Specialist at the Mental Health Association of Orange County. Moreover, his past role as President at non-profit organizations such as the Coalition for the Advancement of Civil Justice illustrates his commitment to equality, fairness, and progress.

Br. Chapin's work in ministry and wedding officiation reflects a similar set of ideals along with the talent needed to put them to use. An ordained minister, his studies in sociology and theology at Loyola Marymount University and his degree in Christian chaplaincy from UCMI Pastoral Training Institute have provided him with the necessary training for the co-ordination and performance of wedding ceremonies at Always and Forever – Southern California Weddings, where he currently serves as Administrator and Primary Officiant. Br. Chapin's ministry has extended beyond the co-ordination of weddings, however, and, as a certified pastoral counselor, TIPS-certified specialist in drug and alcohol abuse prevention, and a certified teenager/child grief counselor, he has sought to ensure the health and happiness of the couples he marries as well as their families.

All of his valuable skills and life experience Br. Chapin has brought with him to his vice-presidency at Universal Life Church Monastery, which has undoubtedly grown and flourished as a consequence. He himself has eloquently expressed the high purpose and the profound impact of progressive ministerial work at the Church on the Universal Life Church Monastery blog, and what a selflessly rewarding privilege it is for the ordained minister. It is only appropriate to mention how instrumental his managerial role has been in the continuing success of the Church, and how greatly he will be missed. We send Br. Chapin our sympathy over the loss of his mother, and we wish his father an imminent recovery.

Welcoming Bruce Taylor

With our loss of Br. Chapin, we are happy to announce the appointment of Br. Bruce Taylor to our Board of Directors. Br. Taylor has been an ordained minister since 1978 and currently operates a successful and well-respected newspaper which serves the local business community of the mid-Willamette valley of Oregon. We believe his wide-ranging experience and skills will be a highly relevant and valuable contribution to our ministry.

As an ordained minister, Br. Taylor possesses first-hand, practical knowledge of wedding officiation, wedding laws, community outreach, and the ordination process. His ability to reach out to those seeking an open-minded and welcoming church experience has been well demonstrated during his more than thirty years of ministry, while he has shown dedication to making the institution of marriage welcoming and fulfilling for diverse groups of people. Also, Br. Taylor's background in ministry and theology has given him the opportunity to provide friendly and non-judgmental spiritual counsel to those who might otherwise feel like outsiders to the church.

In addition to his background in ministry, Br. Taylor has a long track record of competency in business operations and management, which will prove indispensable in church administration. Br. Taylor's entrepreneurial and leadership skills are evident in his ability to forge a community of business leaders through his publication, Salem Business Journal. Through his experience in the publishing industry, he has been able to collaborate with others in order to provide useful and relevant information to the community on banking, real estate, marketing, technology, construction, and other business-related fields. Br. Taylor's managerial and collaborative skills will be invaluable in his position on our Board of Directors.

Br. Taylor is also a husband and father of three. He and his wife reside in Oregon. Two of their children are currently attending college, while their oldest son is currently serving on active military duty. A true humanitarian at heart, Br. Taylor is dedicated, principled, imaginative, and professional in all of his endeavors. We are honored to have his service in our church and look forward to working with him to help our spiritual community grow and flourish.

Church Constitutions versus Changing Social Attitudes

2009-12-30T15:57:00.000-08:00

Here at the Universal Life Church Monastery blog, we have tried every so often to plumb in depth the same-sex marriage controversy in the United States, providing well-informed and thought-provoking reflections on current trends in this debate. However, we have also striven to avoid generic commentaries which can be found anywhere else and to offer unique perspectives on specific problems within the move towards marriage equality. One little-examined aspect of this issue is the relationship between church constitutions, the "unconstitutional" actions of clergy members, and the attitudes of church-members and colleagues, and whether church constitutions should be amended to reflect the changing values of both clergy and laity.

Like most forms of social change regarding sexuality, gender, the family, and reproduction, the move towards legalization of same-sex marriage has presented great challenges for the Christian tradition and, most recently, for the Presbyterian Church of the United States (PC (USA)) in particular, which heretofore has seen little need to confront the issue. The problem arose when Laurie A. McNeill, pastor of Central Presbyterian Church in Montclair, New Jersey, informed her presbytery, her session (governing body of her church), a ministry committee, and her congregation that she had married another woman in Massachusetts. According to Leslie Scanlon of The Presbyterian Outlook, the PC (USA) Book of Order's Directory of Worship defines marriage as a "civil contract" between a man and a woman; however, Paul Leggitt, a former member of the board of directors of the evangelical Presbyterian Coalition, argues that McNeill has taken "contradictory vows" as a consequence of her marriage to another woman. According to Leggitt, marrying a member of one's own sex is "doing something that’s in direct violation of the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which [McNeill] took a vow to uphold". Ironically, however, most colleagues at the presbytery meeting "applauded" McNeill's announcement, and her session "voted unanimously to support [her] decision and to affirm her ministry at Central Church", although members of the congregation reportedly said the unofficial church policy was "don't ask, don't tell". But to be fair, we must grant that Leggitt's point about a contradiction between same-sex marriage and the PC (USA) constitution still ostensibly poses a problem for McNeill.

What is a minister such as McNeill to do when her church's constitution prohibits marriages such as hers, yet her presbytery and session have expressed support for her marriage and her congregation, tolerance, despite their mild unease? Indeed, it is a precarious predicament to be in, and it forces ministers in such positions to choose between traditional ecclesiastical law and the changing attitudes of the colleagues and lay-members around her. In actuality, changing civil law in some states has posed a problem for the PC (USA) law defining civil marriage as between one man and one woman, since in these states civil marriage is between two people of either sex. Thus, the PC (USA) constitution now experiences pressure not only from changing attitudes, but also from the changing reality of civil law. Of course, civil same-sex marriage is not yet legal in New Jersey, but when or if it is, it will be a problem for Presbyterian law in that state as well.

Leggitt himself asks, "Is the constitution of the Presbyterian [C]hurch optional, or is it mandatory?" How convenient for him to pose that question for us to answer here. The problem with laws etched in stone, as it were, is that they are intended to be perennial rather than adaptable, as if they are eternally sound from the point of their conception until the end of time. Some ecclesiastical laws and doctrines—such as those prohibiting murder—certainly seem to deserve permanent status, while others which probably should be created—such as proscriptions against rape—have failed to be codified explicitly. Others yet—such as those allotting marital rights only to those who can mate with one another—probably should be either amended or abolished altogether, especially when both laity and clergy have begun to adapt to a new paradigm. Understandably, a church has the right to proscribe same-sex marriage in its community without interference from the state—but it is not pressure from the state which is challenging the more conservative elders of the PC (USA). It is the church itself.

Certain basic humanitarian principles stand supreme, of course, but this is precisely why ecumenical churches such as ULCM, which cling only to these sparest of tenets, should point out to churches the change from within their own walls and challenge the permanency of church laws which present increasingly constraining and absurdly narrow possibilities for what constitutes a happy and healthy marriage and family.

Source: The Presbyterian Outlook

Tybee Island: Re-imagining the Traditional Wedding?

2009-12-29T15:58:00.000-08:00

New wedding trends are constantly popping up these days, it seems, showing the continuing evolution of the wedding ceremony as young couples hunt out more and more novel ways of tying the knot. This metamorphosis of the traditional wedding took another creative turn recently when it was announced that a movie set would become a permanent wedding chapel in Tybee Island, just southeast of Savannah on the coast of the U.S. state of Georgia.

Originally, the Tybee Island Historical Society planned to move the structure, a donation from the Walt Disney Company, and bring it up to code, but high costs made this effort prohibitive. Now, as Jennifer Beale of The Coastal Source reports, the Society may have accrued enough funds to finish giving the church building a permanent site by next year. The Society does not have any mundane plans in mind for the structure, however, but intends to exploit its unique origin to boost the local tourist industry. As Beale reports, "[the chapel] could help the island become a wedding destination". While wedding tourism is probably not a new concept, as the less-than-reverent Las Vegas tradition of drive-through weddings shows, the use of movie sets to conduct weddings may very well become a unique and lucrative attraction for the small Tybee Island community.

With the Society's carefree attitude about the corporate nature of the donor and their sizing up of the structure for potential profits, the Tybee Island wedding chapel appears to be a cutting edge, unconventional innovation in the solemnization of wedding vows. If we look deeper, however, we must ask ourselves exactly how gutsy and progressive the Society's efforts to exploit Disney's donation are. Indeed, with its proposed renovations, which will include a separate "bride's room" and "groom's room", the site proves to be in many ways a continuation of the traditional wedding and its melodramatic irony, in which the sexes are separated and starkly contrasted with one another—the groom in his sober black suit and the bride in her flamboyant white gown—only to become suddenly joined at the altar by a highly "credentialed" minister who officiates over the proceedings in and old-time, vaguely Protestant setting.

The Society's new endeavor is certainly economically innovative: with its Disney movie set-turned-wedding chapel, the Society has shown little idealism regarding the high-minded loftiness of the traditional wedding ceremony and has instead incorporated it into the local tourist industry to produce profit. Despite this earthly pragmatism, the segregated set-up of the proposed renovation merely reinforces the mysterious, almost esoteric hiddenness of the opposite sex, while the idyllic Christian symbolism and architecture merely create a traditional, old-time American Protestant ambience. But, as the Society probably already knows, this seems to be what brings in the money, especially if one's customers hail from large swathes of the surrounding rural south.

If the Tybee Island Historical Society only partially bucks the trend in conventional wedding ceremonies, which organizations out there accomplish this task in its entirety? Dode Church proprietor Doug Chapman (discussed in a previous post below) may qualify, having integrated secular civil wedding ceremonies into a religious context and thus challenged ideas about what constitutes holy matrimony. However, as long as these supposed "wedding innovators" cling to symbols and traditions that ritually segregate the sexes, only to unite them, they merely reaffirm marriage as a miraculous compact between two eternally separate, dualistic, and opposing natures.

Assuming one of the missions of the universal church, such as ULC Monastery, is to challenge beliefs, perhaps we can begin this task by pressing wedding organizers to keep pushing the envelope and continue to re-invent the concept of marriage in order to reflect the more diverse reality of the larger population.

Source: The Coastal Source

Drug Use and Spiritual Freedom

2009-12-23T15:34:00.000-08:00

What is the place of drug use in spiritual exploration? And what role has the government played in this practice? Many have shown signs of increasing suspicion over the relationship between the pursuit of drug-induced mystical experience and government efforts to control our consciousness and the extent of our knowledge. Indeed, such a relationship exists, and the legal status of a drug often depends on its potentially liberating hallucinatory properties.

On one hand, many local governments in North America have eased restrictions on the use of "softer" Schedule I drugs, such as marijuana, or even outright legalized them. While cannabis dispensaries were shut down in the United States under George W. Bush, reports The Economist, they have since re-opened under the Obama administration, although Obama's drug tsar, Gil Kerlikowske, has sought to remove himself from suggestions of cannabis legalization. Moreover, according to the same article, fourteen U.S. states have decriminalized both medical and recreational marijuana, and others are showing signs of moving in the same direction: Seattle Mayor-elect Mike McGinn, who has previously disclosed his own marijuana use, has expressed support for its legalization in Washington State. However, while marijuana apparently alters mood and emotions as well as everyday perception of the environment, it is not certain that it alters perceptions to create the profound mystical experiences other Schedule I drugs, such as mescaline and psilocybin, seem to create. With respect to marijuana, at least, the subjective, personal exploration of consciousness and reality seems to be increasingly easier, even in the infamously drug-fearing United States.

On the other hand, this is not necessarily the case for those drugs which do seem to help induce mystical experience. The U.S. federal government, in its efforts to implement the nearly forty year-old Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, has all but outlawed "hallucinogens" such as mescaline and dimethyltriptamine (DMT, which is produced naturally in small amounts in the pineal gland) making an exception for use in religious ritual only—and only among traditional users of certain ethnic groups. As journalist Barbara Bradley Hagerty notes while attending a Navajo peyote rite in Fingerprints of God: the Search for the Science of Spirituality, "[o]nly peyote and ayahuasca used in Native American religious ceremonies are permitted" (p. 105). It appears that by grandfathering in the very few traditional communities that had already been using these drugs, the federal government has ensured extremely strict impediments to the drug-induced pursuit of spiritual knowledge in the general population.

But why shouldn't other religious and ethnic groups have access to this altered state of consciousness? Even more, why should drug-induced mystical experience be limited to organized religious ritual? For those who wish to avoid organized religion and follow a personal path, the federal government once again closes off any avenue to the experience. Such a stance forces these individuals to be absorbed into religions where their spiritual independence is crowded out by authoritative doctrine; of course, this is not as much of a problem in a universal church, where doctrine is minimal and egalitarian participation the norm. Still, even most of these organizations are barred from facilitating the experience.

As Barbara Ehrenreich argues in Chapter One of her book Dancing in the Streets: A History of Collective Joy, ritual trance brought about an understanding of a greater force, even if just tribal unity, among tribe-members who faced threats from predators; such tribal cohesion broke apart, she argues in the second chapter, with the rise of military élites which depended on hierarchical stratification within the group. As she and Hagerty's Navajo ceremonies show, substance-induced ecstasy may simply constitute another, primevally human form of communion—not unlike the wine-infused orgies in honor of Bacchus—a sacrament which confers some manner of blessing as well as unity with the divine, in which shaman becomes priest, and wine, hallucinogen.

Governments seem to understand which drugs contribute to profound, mind-altering experiences of the transcendent, and they seem to show a bias towards proscribing those that do. As long as we organize or commune in religious ritual, government restriction on the use of drugs to induce mystical experiences threatens to become an impingement on religious freedom, and as long as individuals seek personal experiences of the divine, it threatens their freedom to practice spirituality privately.

Sources:

The Econimist
Seattle PI
Dancing in the Streets
Fingerprints of God

Christmas Traditions and Religious Syncretism

2009-12-21T15:36:00.000-08:00

It sometimes seems that the debate over "happy holidays" and "merry Christmas" has grown inexorably stale and petty, considering the childish defensiveness of many on both sides of this quirky little social discussion. This is especially true for those of us who view it as killing the fun, who wish to enjoy the rituals and festivities themselves rather than debate theology, the church, or the religious foundation of a given holiday. But perhaps this conflict over phrasing represents a significant change in attitudes about the meaning and function of Christmas, as well as those holidays which occur during the same "season".

Religious fundamentalism seems to be a leading—but certainly not the sole—exponent of preserving "merry/happy Christmas". Columnist David Rosman gives an atheist's perspective in The Missourian, relating it to the controversy over the election in Asheville, NC, of an atheist city councilor, Cecil Bothwell, which we have already discussed in a previous blog below. Rosman points out the efforts of former Asheville NAACP President H.K. Edgerton to unseat Bothwell because of his atheism, using a proscription in the North Carolina state constitution against atheists in office. (This stipulation, Rosman notes, is trumped by the U.S. Constitution, which bars religious tests for obtaining office.) Should non-believers such as heathens, animists, Buddhists, etc., therefore hold no rights in North Carolina, he asks? Clearly, they do, he says, and by pointing out how these belief systems also celebrate rebirth during the winter season, he shows the validity of heathen beliefs and their similarities with monotheism.

Rosman's argument forces us to consider a broader, more syncretic definition of the winter season recalling common-shared rites surrounding the shortest day of the year—winter solstice, when the days begin to grow longer—which signifies death and regeneration through the survival of light (fire) and life (the evergreen) into Spring. It seems common sense that these inspiring motifs of an ancient European paganism rooted in natural cycles and rhythms informs the much newer mass commemorating the birth of an avatar who was allegedly crucified to atone for the sins of unworthy humans, who will suffer eternal torment if they do not believe in this event. Indeed, even Candlemas was founded on the pagan Celtic festival of Imbolc, which, at the start of February, marks the halfway point to Spring by the invocation of light and its life-giving power; even more, compare the invocation of light and greenery with the similar Christian ritual of the Eucharist—both are a form of imitative magic, which seeks to realize a circumstance by mimicking it. All of us share the preoccupation with surviving the death of winter until the return of the growing season, which requires at least basic knowledge of astronomical occurrences—even atheists rely on the return of the growing season—so this basic human experience seems to justify a more general expression of goodwill.

What of the true "happy holidays" pedants, though—those who, like their "merry Christmas" counterparts, could never articulate a solid argument for the use of this "newfangled euphemism"? Certainly, if they fail to produce sufficient grounds for the use of such a generic greeting, chances are they hold a rather disingenuous and patronizing attitude towards the religious specificity of holidays like Christmas. One could argue that "happy holidays" dilutes the unique character of a date which is intended to commemorate a specific event, and that ignoring the importance of its uniqueness leads to purposelessness—after all, why commemorate a noteworthy event if it is no different from another? We all may as well have one single, nebulous holiday. Such an attitude is certainly annoying for those who are astute enough to detect the disingenuousness. It is probably a good and reverent thing too, then, to be specific when we are present at a particular religious service and it is safe to assume that those around us share particular beliefs about exactly what the day represents. Most likely, you will not incur a frown from your listener if you greet them "merry Christmas" inside a Christian church.

But all of these considerations are ultimately beside the point—to dwell on them is to grudge the season its joyous spontaneity. Peace on earth and goodwill to all living things are worthy principles for any universal church to uphold. Whatever you wish to call this time of year (I still say "merry Christmas" and subsequently provide a disclaimer if the listener looks nonplussed), perhaps we can all agree that it marks an event or period which is in some sense "magical"—even if this simply carries the scientific connotation of recognizing the amazing and mysterious workings of the universe and how it affects all of us and our planet. And hopefully we can all agree that the most important part of it is to transcend religious and ethnic differences and commune with our fellow human being in solemn ritual and warm, festive revelry.

Source: Columbia Missourian

Atheism and Sensationalism in the U.S. Media

2009-12-18T15:51:00.000-08:00

Many of us take it for granted that the southern United States remains a bastion of religious fundamentalism, where right-wing "personalities"—especially in the Baptist church and other evangelical Protestant denominations—hold sway over local politics and social life, and where change equals degradation of the social fabric. But how stereotypical is this assumption? If it is indeed a stereotype, Asheville, North Carolina, is one southern town which has shown small signs of changing attitudes about the relationship between theology and politics—namely, atheists in political office. Conversely, the idea of atheists in office seems to have sparked more controversy in U.S. cities outside the American south, as well as among civil rights leaders, suggesting how unexpected and widespread the apprehension towards atheism is in American politics.

The recent election of Cecil Bothwell to the Asheville City Council is one example of this "daring" "intrusion" of atheism, but unfortunately for Bothwell it was not the local civil rights organization who challenged the portrayal of his election as scandalous. As David Forbes of Mountain Express reports, "only one opponent, H.K. Edgerton, a former president of the Asheville NAACP best known locally for walking around town brandishing a Confederate flag", invoked North Carolina's state constitutional ban on atheists in public office in order to stop Bothwell's election. Forbes notes, however, that such state bans "have been routinely trumped by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly prohibits any religious tests for public office". Meanwhile, it seems that the majority of Asheville's city council showed a laid-back acceptance of Bothwell, even giving "an enthusiastic round of applause".

It is a rather ironic inversion of attitudes. For those of us devoted to fairness and tolerance, the counter-intuitive stance of nominally progressive leaders like Edgerton shows how arbitrary and unreliable social reform organizations in America can be, as well as the isolation and obscurity of potential voices of support.
Where, then, can anti-discrimination activists find a home-base, as it were, to lobby for their interests, where moderation and professionalism prevail in the media? Not necessarily in the big northern city, the supposed centre of education and progress. Further illustrating America's general, endemic phobia towards atheists in power, Forbes states that "the proverbial Internet flood gates have opened, with national blogs from across the political spectrum weighing in", noting how even the Washington Post's blog has sensationalized Bothwell's election.
The media sensationalism surrounding the election of an open "atheist" to a city council seems absurd for those of us who believe that separation of church and state is codified in the U.S. constitution. Indeed, it seems even sillier when one notes that Bothwell does not even identify as atheist—a term which he claims has unpleasant "evangelical" connotations—but rather as a "post-theist". His characterization as an atheist, in fact, comes from "a now-defunct MySpace page for his 2008 County Commissioner campaign", according to Forbes. But not even the accommodating label of "post-atheist" has soothed and placated the national media, who often seem intent on caricaturing atheists and agnostics as weird, exotic, or insidious.

The response of social justice activists to this controversy has largely been splintered, marginalized, and unfocussed, while the blogs and newspapers have begun to resemble a carnival. However, acceptance of faith minorities in positions of power cannot remain the province of small-town southern councilors or anomalous islands of progressive politics, but must become the trend in the nation's capital, major cities, and publishing houses, where the most effective modes of communication operate. It must, in the end, become the mainstream in American media.

Source: Mountain Xpress

Dode Church: A Thorn in the Side of the English Church

2009-12-14T15:45:00.000-08:00

Many of us who seek out alternatives to mainstream religion will admire the steadfastness of Doug Chapman, a chartered surveyor who discovered the nine-hundred year-old Dode Church in the countryside of north Kent, England. Chapman, who fell in love with the decrepit structure, bought it in 1992, restored it, and began hosting civil wedding ceremonies there in 1999. His unconventional use of the building has not gone without note, however—officials of the Church of England, as well as a local MP, have spoken out against it. Chapman's case illustrates the uneasiness of high-ranking religious and political authorities over the unorthodox use of sacred sites.

Exactly what is it about Chapman's use of this historic structure—which saw its congregation wiped out by the bubonic plague of 1348-9— that ruffles the feathers of the English Church, an institution which itself is supposed to have been formed in reaction against staid and unbending authority? After all, he is carrying on the tradition of uniting man and woman in the 'house of God', and through the legal apparatus, moreover. Apparently, this is the very reason the English Church objects to the weddings at Dode: according to Michael Purton, of Newsquest Media Group, "The Church of England has called for Dode’s marriage license to be revoked, opposing civil ceremonies taking place in religious settings". At first, it seems the English Church views itself as a natural authority over the performance of weddings on sacred sites, even when such sites sit on privately owned property, as in the case of Dode, which has also been owned in the past by an archaeologist as well as the Roman Catholic Church.

However, the English Church may have an even more covert motive for their objection to the civil wedding ceremonies hosted at Dode by Chapman, who has sought to work with local residents and find out "what concerns they have". According to him, the building was "always meant to be a spiritual place", yet it is also "a church without religion because many people feel religion judges them, and I don’t want people to feel judged here"; furthermore, according to Purton, "the church has no congregation and has not been affiliated to any religion" since Chapman bought it. Perhaps what the English Church really objects to is the consecration of marriage in a non-denominational, universal church, within a spiritual context but without the scrutiny of an organized hierarchy or congregation. It may be the uprooting of the traditional wedding from its fixture in a central Church which makes Chapman's actions so offensive to English Church officials.

It seems as if such clergy-members view the spiritual independence of the government-sanctioned weddings at Dode as a sign of disrespect for—even the profaning or desecration of—a site which ought to fall under the providence of a central religious institution. Supporters of Dode, however, might well argue that the English Church is not the final voice on the consecration of marriage in spiritual contexts, and that non-religious entities have as much right as the Church to conduct wedding ceremonies on holy sites. Perhaps the most important point to take away from all of this is the distinction between spirituality and religion, and the freedom of spiritual practice from central authority. Why, after all, shouldn't an independent citizen have the right to perform sacred rites which also happen to be legally recognized, and on his or her own private property, which also happens to be "sacred ground"?

Source: News Shopper