Most readers will know that the Living Interfaith blog began on the Living Interfaith website. But there has been on problem after another on the website. So the blog moved here.
HOWEVER, the website is back up and functioning! Hallelujah!
So to keep up with the blogs, please go to http://www.livinginterfaith.org/.
Thanks!
Friday, April 6, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Passover and Easter – Celebrating Both, Denigrating Neither
I am so looking forward to this Sunday. Passover begins Friday night, and Easter is Sunday morning. We plan to celebrate and honor both, Living Interfaith style. As it’s developed, that’s a rather special style. We are not going to be seeking some kind of lowest common religious denominator. Rather, we will honor Easter with a service (a little shorter than usual), and then honor Passover with a Seder (a little shorter than usual).
Side by side. No attempts to “compare and contrast.” And certainly no attempts to trump one with the other. Rather, we honor two foundationally important holy days, and celebrate them.
A friend who is a chaplain at Swedish Hospital
Then we’ll transition to a Passover Seder, where we will experience the ritual foods and prayers of Passover, which I will admit is my favorite Jewish holy day. I won’t be giving a sermon, but as one of the elder Jews present, I probably have a word or two to share.
The traditional Seder is broken up with the Passover dinner. We’ll have a potluck lunch. And instead of the usual Seder table discussions, I have a feeling we’ll have a rather free-wheeling discussion of how we experience Resurrection, as well as how we experience and practice freedom.
This is Interfaith as I have always envisioned it. A celebration of our common humanity. An honoring of differing spiritual traditions without argument. Where we learn from one another, instead of throw stones at one another.
And I’ll bite my tongue and try very hard not to mention even once that my book The Interfaith Alternative is now available. J I won’t even mention the book’s website! (www.InterfaithAlternative.com) .
I celebrate Easter because friends that I love and respect are Christian, and I want to respect and honor this Christian holy day because they are important to me. The Christians in our congregation will celebrate Passover with me, not because they’ve converted, but because they wish to honor a Jewish holy day. And the Baha’i, Buddhist, Muslim, and Humanist members of our congregation will come and celebrate with us for the same reasons.
This is Interfaith. This is how we can move ahead and build a world in which we work together, with the compassion and love that all of our paths have tried to teach us. We do not need to divide ourselves. It is time for unity. True unity. A unity of compassion and a unity of action in the world.
We can do this. And, as Hillel taught us, “If not now, when?”
Friday, March 9, 2012
Why Costco and I Are Parting
First Consumer Reports, and now Costco. I hadn’t intended this to be a month of “shedding.” But one doesn’t always control timing. You may have noticed that. J
I like Costco. I’ve been a member for years. That comes to an end this month. The reason? Last November, Costco unashamedly bought an election.
Costco wanted to be able to sell booze. The legislature had refused to pass a bill that would take the State of Washington
So why did I vote against it the second time? And why am I leaving Costco? The two are related. This time out, Costco decided to buy the election. It poured millions and then more millions and then even more millions into advertising. This is morally and ethically unacceptable. It may be legal (after all, money is speech, just ask the Supreme Court who, 5 to 4, plainly said so) but it’s not moral and it’s not ethical, and buying an election OUGHT to be illegal.
So this time out I voted against the initiative. I might have forgiven Costco if its efforts at totally compromising democracy had failed. But it didn’t fail. It succeeded Our democracy was successfully compromised. So I determined to leave Costco. For various reasons I couldn’t leave until now. But now it’s over.
I got good, cheap gas at Costco, and good prescription prices. No more. I buy my gas elsewhere now. And all my prescriptions have all been transferred.
I’ll feel a financial pinch by leaving Costco. But the integrity of our elections ought to mean something. It does to me. I’ve spoken before about the high cost of cheap. The price of cheap at Costco has become too high.
You might well say it’s a futile gesture. Costco will make money hand over fist. Very likely. My leaving will cause not even a ripple. Without a doubt, quite true. No one will care. On this I beg to differ. I will care.
I believe there are those who would control us by making us feel that we are powerless. We are not powerless. If enough of us leave Costco, it will indeed make a difference – a huge difference. But if nothing else, when I get up in the morning, I’ll be able to respect the sleepy face and drooping eyes staring back at me from the bathroom mirror. That alone is worth the price.
Possessions, power, wealth, glitz – they are all illusions. In the end, who we are is all we ever really have.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Saying "No" to Consumer Reports
Living Interfaith can mean really big things some times, and sometimes rather small things. I wrote the letter below to the president of Consumer Reports. Haven’t heard back from him yet. But I felt it was an important letter to write. “Consumer” is not the same as “Consumerism.” We all consume. But if we would live our faith (or our beliefs if you prefer), I think we need to reflect upon our personal responsibilities as consumers. In the next blog, I want to talk a bit about some ways to shop ethically. Meanwhile:
___________________________________________________________
Mr. Jim Guest, President
Consumer Reports
21 February 2012
Dear Mr. Guest,
I’m sixty-three. For much of my life, starting in my early twenties, I renewed my subscription to Consumer Reports year after year. For about ten years now I have not. You asked me to try again, and I accepted the trial offer. You may not care, as I’ve written before and never once received a reply, but I feel it’s important to tell you why I cannot accept your subscription offer to Consumer Reports.
I believe we must move away from a society that is only interested in consumption. As a consumer, the questions I want answered are many. But I am not interested in, nor can I support a magazine for whom price and “value” are the only driving concerns. Below is what I need to know about my consumer purchases. I would urge, indeed beg you to consider reformatting your magazine to answer all, not just a few of these questions.
1) Green Factor – this you occasionally mention (which IS an improvement), but ignore on any regular basis.
- What kind of packaging does it come in, and is it recyclable?
- What is the impact of the product on the environment?
- How much energy is involved in its use? Are there similar products that use less energy?
- How much energy is involved in its production?
- What is its impact on resources? (what is it made of and what does that mean?)
- Is it reparable? (assuming we are not dealing with a food item) or must it be dumped in the trash if it fails to work? Are there similar products that ARE reparable?
2) Justice Factor – this you completely ignore.
- How does the company that makes the product treat it’s employees?
- How does the company that makes the product treat its suppliers?
- How does the company that makes the product act in the world?
3) Value – how well made is it for the price? Is it safe? This you do quite well already.
4) Cost Comparisons – What are comparable products running? This you also do quite well already.
5) Use Factor – How long will it last? Here you do a mostly ok job.
For you to concentrate on #s 3-5 and give virtually no attention to 1 & 2 is to deny the consumer crucial information. It also perpetuates the use and throw away culture that endangers not only us, but our children and the planet. The truth of it is that everything we do as consumers affects other consumers. The time has come where I believe we must, as consumers, consider how our consumption affects the world.
As example, it so happens that I had to replace my television recently. I did research and ended up buying a Panasonic LED TV. Then, in your “trial” report, you talked about TV’s. Nowhere do you mention how much electricity a plasma TV uses as opposed to an LED, nor do you compare the various models for use of electricity. This was crucial to my decision. And I realized that your magazine would have been of no help to me.
I have cancelled my subscription.
Yours sincerely,
Rev. Steven Greenebaum
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Devaluing People
There is so much talk about values these days. But I have to wonder where those values are – and what those values are.
One of our local opinionators was on the radio the other day. He had an example of someone who clearly seemed to be taking advantage of a program for impoverished students. What struck me was not that there was a dishonest person taking advantage of a program that was intended to help people who truly need help. What struck me was the glee with which the opinionator pointed out this sponger to the listener, and then the “lesson” to be learned – that programs that help poor people are a waste of taxpayer dollars.
I realized, as I turned the radio off in disgust, that these are the values by which many in our country now function. I hate to sound THAT old … but it didn’t used to be that way. Well, not completely. John Calvin, long ago, preached that wealth was a sign of God’s grace and poverty a sign of God’s wrath. But the overwhelming majority of people rejected that idea a long time ago. … Or did they? I'd thought they had - hoped they had.
I remember as a child and then as a youth, a maxim that was a foundation stone of our system of justice … “Better ten guilty persons go free than one innocent person be wrongly convicted.” In case you haven’t noticed, that maxim has eroded rather dramatically of late. Now we are approaching a maxim that says, “Better ten innocent persons go to jail than one guilty person go free.” We aren’t there yet, but this is the direction we are heading. And few seem to notice. Or if they do notice, few seem to comment. But I digress.
My point is that the same erosion is taking place in our sense of an obligation to be our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. Our system of health and welfare safety nets are not perfect. No sane person would pretend that they are. But what the radio “news” opinionator seemed to be saying was that it was better that ten poor people go hungry than take the risk that one crook might game the system. Think about that. Ponder it. This is the direction we are headed.
Last year our Congress, Democrats and Republicans, voted to pull the plug on an organization whose purpose was to ensure that the disadvantaged of our country could still have a voice and be able to vote. Some say “Acorn” was innocent and set up. Some say “Acorn” had, if you will, some very bad seeds. But we return to the new mantra. Better that ten people lose their right to vote, than one person working to help them game the system.
How did we get here? I don’t think there’s a simple answer. And that may be why no one is asking the question. I mean, really, who has time to deal with something complex? We want our answers simple. We want them unambiguous. And we want them now. That’s a part of it. In this complex world, we crave simplicity. But that’s not an answer.
And I’m not here to propose answers – even if I had any, and I don’t. I am here to beg us to ask the question. And more than ask the question, to ponder it. Why is this the direction we are moving?
This is all on my mind as I begin pondering next week’s sermon, “Remembering Lincoln: Greatness Does Not Mean Perfection”. What is it that we value? Where are our values? Our values. It’s easy enough to complain about other people – but what do we value, and why?
Friday, February 10, 2012
Gay Marriage: Church and State
With the state legislature passing a bill legalizing it, the question of gay or same-sex marriage is back in the headlines. I heard an argument the other day that gay marriage is wrong because marriage must be between a man and a woman. Why? – To ensure, the continuation of the human race! But, if that’s the criteria, doesn’t it mean that no infertile man or woman should be allowed to marry? Should a couple that chooses not to have children have their marriage annulled? Doesn’t it mean that no senior should be allowed to marry?
Others believe that gay or same-sex marriage somehow threatens the very institution of marriage. But how? If marriage is a committed relationship, it would seem to me that multiple affairs, and multiple marriages are far more threatening to the institution of marriage than acknowledging the right of committed gay couples to marry.
For me these both of these arguments are rationalizations, not reasons.
This is about religion. Some, both in politics and outside of politics admit they believe that same-sex marriage is an attack on God. That’s the truth of the division. Yes, there are blatant homophobics. But essentially, for most, this is about faith. This is about what we, and the spiritual paths we follow, believe marriage ought to mean.
That’s not an unimportant question. What our spiritual paths believe marriage ought to mean is deeply important – and, I believe, ripe for disagreement as to what Scripture really means. But whatever Scripture “really means,” I also believe the state has no business sticking its nose into this spiritual matter – no business whatsoever.
And yet it has … for centuries. By coupling marriage with religion, we have breached the walls of separation of church and state. And yet the practice is so ancient, that most of us don’t realize it.
Other than blatant homophobic hysteria, I believe the major reason legalizing same-sex marriage is such a huge issue is that it makes for an irreconcilable mixing of church and state. Why? Because ministers, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders are called upon to perform marriages. And marriage is a contract.
I count myself among those who believe there should be a high wall, a hugely high wall of separation between church and state. The framers of our Constitution believed so as well. Article Six, Section III of the Constitution specifically states that there shall be no “religious test” required to hold public office. As our country began, this was a real and emotional issue. Several of the colonies prohibited Catholics and Jews from holding office. Many demanded not only prohibiting “Papists” (their word for Catholics) and Jews, but also that only members of a particular Protestant denomination, theirs, could hold office. The framers said, emphatically: “No.” There is to be no religious test to hold office. None. Ever. God is not mentioned in the Constitution – not because the Framers sought to abolish God (most believed in God), but because they sought a clear separation of Church and State.
Most people point to the “Establishment Clause” of the 1st Amendment as the seat of religious freedom in the United States
Now the House and Senate in the state of Washington
Could (should) the state be involved in telling these State Senators and Representatives what to believe? No. Emphatically, no! But should these Senators and Representatives be telling the state what should and should not be legal based on their faith? Again, emphatically no!
According to the Everett
1) “It would redefine marriage to be a civil contract between two people, regardless of their gender, rather than only between a man and a woman.”
2) “And the bill seeks to make clear that the freedom of religious leaders to refuse to conduct marriages of same-sex couples is protected. It states that clergy, rabbis, imams and other religious officials, as well as churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious institutions, cannot be sued for saying no.”
So why is there still a problem? I believe it’s because we still haven’t dealt with the underlying issue – we still mix church and state when it comes to marriage.
Marriage is a contract. It is a legal and binding contract. It confers upon those who are married specific legal rights as well as obligations – with specific penalties and ramifications if we fail to live up to our contract – penalties and ramifications that are adjudicated by a court of law. No minister is allowed to preside at a divorce!
Years ago, with regards to the segregation of the “races,” the Supreme Court decided that separate could not be equal. I agree. And the same holds true with the so-called “civil unions.” Marriage confers very specific contractual and legal rights. There can be no “separate but equal” status for gays who are “allowed” to have civil unions.
But, you may say, isn’t marriage something sacred? Isn’t that why we refer to holy matrimony?
Every church, mosque, synagogue and temple has the God given, and Constitutionally guaranteed right to celebrate marriage as it sees fit. Marriage in one faith community, may mean something different, and has the right to mean something different than it does in another. We already acknowledge this where the Catholic Church may say, “We don’t recognize your divorce and you may not marry again,” and the state says, “Your divorce is legal, of course you may marry again.”
But it’s officiating at a marriage that crosses the line. Marriage, we remind ourselves, has specific contractual and legal rights that are STATE and FEDERAL in nature.
We are all acquainted, from movies if nowhere else, with the phrase, “With the power vested in me by the state of …. I now pronounce you man and wife.” These days, many will say, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.” And one might also simply say, “I pronounce you married.” Or one might say something else. But the bottom line is that the state has “vested” clergy with the power to marry. I can’t buy into that.
As beautiful, as wonderful, as joyful as marriage is, or can be, I can’t buy into the state vesting clergy with that kind of power. Proof of that power comes after the marriage ceremony where the clergy person signs a document, a legal document, acting as an agent of the state! For me that blows a galaxy-sized hole into the idea of separating church from state.
And if you think I’m the first to propose this, you might be interested to know that countries like Italy and France
Monday, January 30, 2012
Visiting a Mosque
Along with three other members of Living Interfaith, I had the privilege of attending the Friday sermon at a local mosque. It was enlightening, and spiritually beautiful.
One aspect of it was that so much of the experience felt familiar. One of the sermon themes concerned the importance of being spiritually integrated – that the person we show the world be the same person we see in the mirror. It’s a theme I’ve explored more than once. An interesting question was posed: if you were to meet yourself, would you like the person you’d met? Would you trust the person you met? Good questions. Important questions.
And it struck me. When we go someplace new, if we are looking to see similarities, generally we see them. And when we are looking for differences, that’s what we see. Not an earth-shattering discovery, but interesting. What can be a challenge is seeking out both, the similar and the different, and, what’s crucial, feeling threatened by neither.
One clear difference was how women are expected to dress. One of our group (two men, two women), had a small problem. While she came looking very well dressed for a non-Muslim, she had forgotten to wear long sleeves (the arms need to be covered, as well as the head). I quickly loaned her an (almost) matching shirt to wear under her blouse. All was fine and we were off. J
The mosque is in Shoreline. It is a beautiful, truly beautiful, and spiritually welcoming place to gather. But there was a moment of concern when we arrived. Only a couple of cars! Wrong day? No. Wrong time? No. Wanting to be good guests we had arrived fifteen minutes early for the 12:30 prayers and sermon. And there clearly only a few people there!
Imam Polovina came out to welcome us. He is a warm and gracious and deeply spiritual man. He guided us inside. We all removed our shoes. The women went upstairs, the men entered at the ground floor.
Then it was time for me to feel really at home. Just like Living Interfaith, very few members came early. But at 12:30 people started pouring in. And they kept entering during opening prayers.
The method of praying is different from ours, but it’s purpose is the same – to get outside of ourselves, to acknowledge things greater than ourselves, and to reconnect with the sacred. And I also couldn’t help but notice (just as I do in churches, synagogues, temples) that some entered deeply into their prayers, and some seemed simply to be going through the motions. That, for me, is always one of the great dangers of all repeated rituals: that if practiced without intention, they can become rote.
I was moved when, at the very end, everyone stood shoulder to shoulder. At Living Interfaith, at the close of our service we form a “circle” and hold hands. But standing truly shoulder to shoulder is also quite powerful. I want to try it some Sunday. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
The chanting in Arabic was stirringly, stunningly beautiful. Centering. Though I could not understand a word, it did not feel at all “foreign.” Then there were more prayers. And then, Imam Polovina gave his sermon … twice! The first time it was in Bosnian. The second time in English. And he does that every Friday!
This, of course, quickly speaks to a common misunderstanding about Islam. Not all Muslims are Middle Eastern. Indeed, most of the Muslim world is not. People may want to web-search Bosnia Bosnia Bosnia
I found out more about Imam Polovina on Sunday, when I returned with others from our church to witness Sunday prayers and then had the chance afterwards to chat both with the Imam and his very gracious wife.
This is a blog, not a book. I cannot possibly convey the joy and spiritual fullness of the experience. Unprompted, several people came over to us, both before the service and afterwards, with a smile and a warm greeting of welcome.
Ok, I’ll admit it. I’m not hugely comfortable with the separation of men and women when it comes to prayer. But I know that such a separation was an integral part of Judaism as well until very recently. And it remains an integral part of how many Jews still practice their religion. Out of respect for those Jews and for Muslims who practice a similar separation, I remind myself that they might well be equally uncomfortable if they came to a Living Interfaith service, where men and women sit side by side. And it occurs to me that sometimes becoming comfortable with being a little uncomfortable can be a very good thing!
I believe our great calling is to acknowledge and respect our differences, while at the same time not letting them divide us.
If you have never attended worship at a mosque, I strongly recommend it. There is much that you will find familiar. There is much that you will find different. But at its core, we are all striving to embrace our common humanity. And we cannot do that behind walls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)