When fear is the norm and hate comes to town.

Yesterday, ACT! brought William French (Bill Warner) to town to speak on "political Islam." I went to hear, take notes, record audio, and maybe speak out. For those who don't know, French - former physics professor - has taken on the nom de plume Bill Warner - the anti-formal-scholarship scourge of everyone who dares have a non-biased view of Islam. He now travels around as a self-declared expert on so-called political Islam and its relationship with non-Muslims - as mediated by every crack-pot theory and cherry-picked historical element proudly used by those afraid that their own version of world conquering religion is in danger of losing out to any other opposing force. (If it sounds like I am put off by him, I have to admit that anyone who sells his own explanatory copy of the Koran and can't actually speak Arabic is at the bottom of my list of "scholars" I am likely to consult about Islam.)

The blog post that follows is an attempt to describe the meeting, outline my feelings during and after, and critique the message taught by Dr. French.

When I got to the building, all of the doors were locked. I was able to get in with another gentleman when a member unlocked the door for us. It appears that there may have been one entrance that was available from the other side of the building, but I didn't try to get to it after I was in to see if it was unlocked. I sat down and began take notes and record excerpts from the speech. It became immediately obvious that I was in the presence of the worst sort of liar... one who uses bits of truth to create lies. His analysis of the conquest of Islam (itself potentially suspect in light of the religious sources and archeological evidence), could have been applied to pretty much any conquest ever, including the conquest of Caanan by the Jews (who he claimed "never controlled territory") or the destruction of native religions in the US and Africa by Christian missionaries and armies. However, his facts consisted of cherry-picked history that - as is often the case with these types - emphasized atrocities committed in war, reported by the conquered, and used as case studies to laminate a twisted understanding of the beliefs of a third of the world's people onto a population that would for the most part reject every one of those stories as exemplary of what their own behavior should be.

To be clear, I am not an apologist for the various violent atrocities perpetuated by Muslims in the past or present. I am not an apologist for any war or state/power sanctioned violence ever, particularly ones in which religion serves as the primary motivating force. For me, that goes for the Jews of the OT, the Puritans in our own country, or any other group that demonstrates their moral superiority by killing those who aren't like them. The clear problem here was in the deliberate use of tactics that Christians routinely and vehemently reject when applied to themselves. None of us would allow a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu or - God forbid - an atheist to set up what they think we believe based upon their reading of our texts, and then tear down their own fictional creation. This happened in spades last night. French consistently laid down a line of supposed facts based on his "research," and applied them without nuance as motivated by specific set of guidelines that he created based upon English interpretations of biased sources to every Muslim in existence. Apparently he is unfamiliar with the concept of a Straw Man, but he beat one in a big way last night.

In addition, every ill ever carried out by Christians was forgiven in light of the fact that IT WASN'T THEIR FAULT - it was the fault of those dang Muslims. I know you probably think I am exaggerating, but I am being absolutely truthful. For French, the instating of state powers in Christendom was supposedly to defend against Muslims (forgetting that Islam took much of its Territory from Byzantine Christians, already in power and at war with the Persians). The Crusades were defensive wars, in his view (conveniently ignoring the overarching need of the Church to rid themselves of the increasingly anti-clergy flagellates, and the church sanctioned killing of other Christians). In fact, Christians didn't even create Just War doctrines, that was the Muslims (because, apparently, Cicero and Augustine of Hippo didn't even exist inside his mythical world). And... you get the point.

I am no expert in Medieval and Pre-Medieval history, nor can I argue knowledge of a superior nature in relation to Muslim conquests of 12-1400 years ago, but I can say a few things with certainty. First, I actually have a degree in comparative religions. Part of that degree involved critical analysis of both historic and modern Islam under the tutelage of the humble and highly educated - and actual expert on Islamic jurisprudence - Dr. Ayman Shabana. This is in comparison to French's self-guided study, supposed tutelage many years ago under a "sufi master," degree in physics, and rejection of formal study of religion in a university environment.

I bring this up to state my second point: whatever the status of his historical fact gathering on medieval and modern Islam, his knowledge of facts on Christianity and its interactions with Muslims are flat out pathetic - this assuming he is not simply outright lying. Based on what I know historically, his statements on such things as Christian vs. Muslim treatment of Jews, the historical causes and reasons for wars in and around the Mediterranean, and how Muslim and Christian interactions have played out through the years is highly biased. So, for example, when Mongol and Muslim Timur the Lame (Tamerlane) conquered Persia, he did indeed make piles of heads of those that revolted, and he did kill many Christians and Buddhists. What is ignored, of course, is that he was attempting to re-establish the rule of the Khans (as in Genghis), that he used tactics practiced by invading hordes the world over, that most of his victims were actually Muslims, and that he made many European Christians, including the leaders of France and Spain, positively gleeful - as they saw him as saving Christians from the Turks. French presents him instead as a killer of non-Muslims who inspires acts of terror amongst such as the Boston bomber - himself named Tamerlane, and outright states that the naming of your child after him was equivalent to naming your child Stalin. The truth of the matter is some groups see him a conquering hero, and many from that region carry that name - much the way that many today carry the name David - a man too bloody from cutting off the tips of Philippine penises to be allowed by God to build the Jewish temple... or, for that matter William, as the name was popularized after the Norman conquest of Britain, characterized by a scorched earth policy, rape, plunder, and massacres of rebels. This sort of rhetorical rubbish and fallacious logic was evident throughout the talk, and leads me to my third point...

I know unmitigated horse hokey when I hear it. Robert Giffen in 1892 told us that there were three types of liars - liars, outrageous liars, and scientific experts - and that they made use of lies, outrageous lies, and statistics. In this case, French is a self-proclaimed scientific expert who attacks Islamic holy texts with a statistical method which, if applied to the OT, would most likely suggest that Christians were bloodthirsty hooligans intent on killing everyone not like them. (I say most likely because I am not a statistician, but I understand enough to know that, applied selectively, statistics gives selective answers). In addition, he makes use of charts and documents that are so manipulated as to be unacceptable to governmental agencies not in thrall to Anti-Muslim forces, which, of course, means to French that Muslims are keeping his "scholarship" from being taught. You see, when I hear a speaker claim that the word Jihad can't be used by the FBI, agree with the audience that the rapes in India are by Muslims and that the Federal government won't let us say "Christmas" anymore, claim that the first mass murder of Jews was by Muslims, and state that Universities don't teach critical thinking and that no religion department in the US takes a critical look at historical Islam or modern Islam, but only brags on the "Golden Age," well, I have to call BS.

In the end, I didn't say anything. There were no reporters, there were no protestors there (at least one left because of the locked doors), and the crown was in a bashing Islam for Jesus mood by the Q&A. I wasn't afraid to stand up, but I did understand that with no audience and no hope for a fair hearing, I would have essentially been narcissistic of me to stand up and try to take French down in front of an audience which is wholly on his side. Most of all, I was sad. I was looking at a room full to overflowing of aging baby boomers - white, well-off, self-assured, and entitled - who were terrified of losing power. They were afraid of losing their daughters to Muslim men, worried about loss of political power, scared that their religion would not win in the arena of ideas. They attitude was similar to that of children when they feel passed by in favor of a sibling, and they are pitching a fit that everyone can't see that they aren't loved enough, listened to enough, believed enough (even when they are wrong), and that the boogeyman is really real.

As far as I am concerned, there was absolutely no faith in Christ and his teachings on display last night. "Christian" and "Muslim" didn't really mean anything other than "Us" and "Them". There was no mention of praying for those we disagree with, no admonition to turn the other cheek, love those who despitefully use us, or submit to adversity as the will of God. Instead, there was simply anger, and fear, and distress, and animosity. If you wanted to see the antithesis of the fruit of the spirit, you had to look no further than Grassy Valley Baptist Church last night.

I will post the audio, if I can figure it out, though it is mostly out-of-context excerpts of the speech. It does give one room for thought, though!

Cross Examined: An Unconventional Spiritual Journey - a review

Bob Seindensticker's Cross Examined is an interesting read. It is a compelling and simple work of historical fiction, loosely based on the events of the 1906 earthquake and rumors of prophecies of the event (A reporter in Los Angeles printed a prophecy of destruction given at the Azusa Street revival on the day of the earthquake with Frank Bartleman releasing a tract trumpeting the earthquake as the judgement of God soon after, and Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White retroactively claimed a vision of the same). Mr. Seidensticker's first foray into novel writing uses the lives of a few affected by and taking advantage of this momentous event as a vehicle for a very competent discussion of both the personal journey of reflection upon divine power and theodicy always created by such events, as well as a thorough examination of many common tropes invoked by Christian apologists and their answers from an atheistic or agnostic sources.

In many ways, this book fills a niche that has needed to be filled for some time. While at places almost trite in its trotting out of arguments used by both sides of the Christian/Atheist debate, it manages to build a comprehend-able and coherent story line of spiritual quest, despair, and discovery that will feel eerily familiar to many children of evangelical boomers who have found themselves disillusioned with Christianity-as-they-know-it and dissatisfied with the answers provided by their confident and self-righteous leaders and elders. Cross Examined uses a comfortingly familiar fiction - similar in style to many works by writers of Christian drama and romance - to seriously question the assumptions and/or pat answers that many of us heard across pulpits or at conferences in our formative years. In doing so, it provides an understandable, concise, and shareable answer to the question of "how did you stray so far so quickly," a question that, I can state from experience, is a hard one to answer.

This is, perhaps, the book's greatest strength. At times, the only way to explain the journey so many of us have taken seems to be to take someone down a path already traveled by oneself - a patent impossibility. This book covers a lot of territory in that journey, couched in historical fiction, and allows the opportunity to either offer the book itself as an answer, or perhaps more importantly to open discussion on one's own journey. In that regard, the book can also be used as a simple way to bring ideas related to apologetics and debate into churches or study groups that are willing and open to having their views challenged in a productive way.

The book promised a "surprise ending," which I will not give away. Suffice it to say that the ending at first felt a bit like a let-down, and quickly became the high point of the book for me, in that it provided the most room for thought and the greatest opportunity to map the ideas of the book onto the life and angst of emerging Christians in our time. Don't skip to the end, though... it doesn't make sense without the rest of the book, and at any rate you would miss out on a entertaining and thought-provoking read.

(Full disclosure: I received this book for free in order to review it. I was not required in any way to give it a positive review. If I did, it was because I genuinely enjoyed it :)

Rants to Revelations by Ogun R. Holder: a review

Recently, I was asked to review Ogun R. Holder's new book Rants to Revelations: Unabashedly Honest Reflections on Life, Spirituality and the Meaning of God. I proceed to do so.

I had some difficulty in reading Holder's "Rants to Revelations," as I found the scholarly side of my personality in constant conflict with the religious/emotive side of my consciousness. The book is indeed what its subtitle proclaims it to be, in that it is genuine and honest, and it does deal with reflections on Life, Spirituality, and the Meaning of God. In that aspect, the book was thoroughly enjoyable. The trials and tribulations of escaping a type of Christianity which was moribund in a theology and praxis that didn't line up with the author's experience and reality - or the texts of the religion - is one which many of us babies of boomers can relate to. The anecdotes and life stories are amusing and instructive, and the freshness of a personal testimony of the author's journey to religious freedom, as well as a strong spiritual consciousness that he can relate to, is quite useful to others on the same journey. On the other hand, I found myself often problematizing the book, and some elements were grating from a literary perspective.

That being said, I am of two minds in wholeheartedly recommending this book as a testimonial read for those on the same path. There are several reasons for this. (Cons to begin, then pros, OK?) The first is the incredible disjointedness of this work. For example, I found the fact that the author continually referenced his faith fellowship (Unity, founded by New Thought mystic and spiritualist Charles Fillmore in 1889) and the joys he found in its theology and practices to be difficult to relate to when he didn't actually begin to flesh those out until chapter 12. This, however, is somewhat mitigated when one reads this as the series of enhanced blog posts that it is - likely aimed at an audience familiar with either Unity or the general hybridization of New Thought and "mainstream" Christian thought (whatever that is). In addition, there was a persistent use of trite tropes, which were unfortunately dished out as pearls of wisdom newly discovered (for example an analysis of the horrifying thoughts generated by standard children's prayers or the comparison between Jesus and Santa Claus - though quite funny, I will admit). THIS, however, is mitigated by the fact that, for the author, they apparently are new. I finally realized that this was so when he claimed to create the word "catharting," a word that has been in use by psychotherapists since the late 1800's, and began to be popularized by Hans Toch in the 1960's. For someone raised only peripherally in our cultural milieu, many popular sayings, advice and cultural comparisons likely appear new and fresh, and rightly so. The third issue I had with the book is in regards to the actual philosophy and theology espoused in the book, which often leans towards a blend between New Thought and Prosperity Gospel. This problem, however, does not detract from the quality of the work, but simply caused me to engage the ideas taken for granted in the work in a critical light - always a useful thing. After all, if a book doesn't make me exercise my brain, it isn't of much literary use to me! Finally, on some things the author is, to me, outright wrong. A good example is his insistence that no child is born "with an inborn penchant for discrimination against another" (pg. 61) - a statement belied by the experiences of anyone who has seen a small child in conflict with someone else who is competing with them for resources!

From here, due to my devotion to the sandwich method of writing reviews, we move to the things I really LIKED about the work. For myself, the most useful facet of the book was the reaffirmation that we are all "strangers in this world" searching for a home, and might even be called to be so. The book really shines when is describes the journey of self-actualization that the author went through.For example, I found myself heartily amen-ing his realization that there is no way to separate the spiritual and the personal (pg. 21), In addition, the illustrations by David Hayward are a joy, and are well chosen to compliment each chapter.

Most importantly, when reading the book, I found myself forced to critically analyze some of the passages, and periodically the book would reveal a turn of thought that was simply delightful. For example, Holder finds a useful way to deal with the concept of an evolving consciousness in a non-dualistic world by conceiving of a "peak optimization of our expression" of the Divine (pg. 27). And for those who are unfamiliar with the "principles" of Unity, chapter 12 offers an excellent chance to engage and critique and analyze these principles, which - agree or not - certainly are worth considering. (For the record, I did not buy all of them, but that didn't detract from their value to me. I took a lot of notes in the margins.) Likewise, for me, Holder's understanding of relationship as an opportunity to "discover the best of ourselves" due to the fact that the other illuminates our own idiosyncrasies is useful, in that he begins to relate to relationship as a spiritual practice which can help us in our "journey to wholeness" (pg. 123). And his statement that the necessity of questioning our beliefs as part and parcel of being aware is good advice for any individual on their life journey. "Questioning a belief does not make it wrong, but it does ask if that belief still serves" (pg. 144) - indeed!

Perhaps the most important contribution of this book lies in the last chapter. In his discussion of the possible future permutations of "God" in human consciousness, Holder delves deeply into geek-dom, with a discussion of the proposed coming (technological) singularity, the ramifications of self-aware non-human consciousness, and a short overview of prevailing thought in this field. For some, this is new and unfamiliar territory, and the author offers a simple and revealing look at its ins and outs.

In the end, I would recommend this book as light reading for those on a similar spiritual journey, or perhaps looking to begin one. When read as a series of essays on the subject of life development, it is an engaging and at times enlightening read which, if nothing else, may cause you yourself to question your beliefs, or at least heartily reaffirm them. And for those not familiar with the New Thought movement, I suggest you read chapter 12 first, then reread it in the context of the book.

(Full disclosure: I received this book for free in order to review it. I was not required in any way to give it a positive review. If I did, it was because I genuinely enjoyed it :)

Spiritual collapse in America

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Dr. Martin Luther King

If you want to know the real cause of spiritual death America, here it is. It's not because there are too many abortions. It's not because "they" are trying to take away your guns. It's not because there are too many teen pregnancies, or because of the collapse of the family. It's not because the rest of the world doesn't follow your narrow interpretation of various Pauline scriptures, nor is it because the country is full of people who refuse to support a Republican for President.

The problem is deeper than that. the problem lies in a society full of so called Christians who have quit following Christ. Individuals who will agonize for decades over one or two scriptures written by Paul to specific churches over specific circumstances, but completely ignore the entire body of what Christ said. It lies in the system that glorifies mammon in every form imaginable, yet refuses to heed the overwhelming power of Christ's statements against violence and revenge. It lies in a "Christian" mentality that refuses to heed the call to help the poor and needy, in favor of narrowing the definition of "neighbor" to mean simply those that are like us and of whom we approve. And it lies in the system of thought that continuously blames the victims of our beliefs and practices as being the cause of the downfall of those same beliefs and practices.

You see, there would not be so many abortions if the politicians who claim to hate them supported women's rights to easily available birth control, supported a rational, fact based, sustainable plan to end poverty, and supported the lives of the same children they claim to defend after they came out of the womb. The need, and I mean the deep internal psychological need, to hold on to a gun at the expense of all else would not exist if we were not so dead set upon the idea of violence, revenge, and "othering" that Christ so despised. And the American family would not be collapsing if we had not allowed our entire social structure to be destroyed in favor of money, power, and hatred towards those not like us.

Unfortunately for the so called Christian right in this country, they will continue to lose support as long as they pretend to agonize over unformed blastocysts, while blowing off the deaths of tens of thousands of foreign children as the collateral damage of heathens. They will continue to fail as a political, social, and religious movement as long as they continue to ignore the words of their founder in order to favor the words of those who offer sacrifices of blood to mammon and other principalities and powers of this world. They will become increasingly embattled as they hold tight to violence as the solution to problems to which Christ suggested a solution of love, nonviolence, prayer, and humility. And eventually the world will watch as they turn into the power hungry, nation-state worshipping, money grasping things that they were meant to be the antithesis too, and quietly slip into the darkness of history.

In the end, the spiritual death that is befalling us in this country is the direct result of the seduction and co-option of those who should speak truth to power by the powers themselves. Love has been replaced by hate, compassion and peace by violence, and a principled stand against mammon by the worship of this deity itself. Thankfully, this death is matched by the beginnings of a spiritual revival which has yet to be recognized by mainstream Western Christianity. A strong, Christ centered, community based, oligarchy resisting Religious consciousness is arising in our young and in our downtrodden. Like every revival before it, it will be resisted, and its leaders will be declared heretics. That, fortunately, will be entirely unable to destroy the spirit of what is now and what is to come. In the end, "greater is He that is in us, then He that is in the world."