I heard Rev. Michael S Piazza speak at an Interfaith luncheon today.\u00a0 He\u2019s a respected and effective liberal minister.\u00a0 He claimed that \u2018spiritual not religious\u2019 people need religion because it offers eternal life.\u00a0 I raised my hand, but there’s never enough time at those things…<\/p>\n
Dear Rev. Piazza:<\/p>\n
Thank you for your talk today.\u00a0 I loved your message that progressive religion should stand for something, until, of course, you raised the issue of \u2018eternal life\u2019.\u00a0 I was encouraged to contribute because you mentioned people of \u2018no faith\u2019 in your opening remarks.\u00a0 Thank you for including this minority!\u00a0 Your topic concerned \u2018spiritual not religious\u2019 people who had left religion.\u00a0 As you know, this group includes many people who don\u2019t believe in an afterlife.<\/p>\n
I love progressive religion for its potential to do good.\u00a0 My worry is about the message we send to people we’d like to work with.\u00a0 I\u2019d like progressive religion to tell people:<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are working for social justice.\u00a0 You are already complete, loving, cool people.\u00a0 We\u2019d love to have you join us.\u00a0 We need you.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rather than<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are working for social justice and can possibly hook you up with eternal life.\u00a0 You are missing a vital ingredient which we can provide.\u00a0 You need us.\u201d<\/p>\n
Suppose we do outlive our bodies.\u00a0 Wouldn\u2019t this be true whether people joined our churches or not?\u00a0 So the afterlife is not a reason to join progressive religion.\u00a0 We don\u2019t claim to have the only way to it.\u00a0 If it exists, it is part of the heritage of all human beings.\u00a0 So people don\u2019t need us for eternal life, even if it is real. \u00a0We need to show that we are working to make sure people have one good life, whether they get a second one or not.\u00a0 This we can promote with confidence.<\/p>\n
And we don’t want to denigrate acceptance of temporality. \u00a0It is a beautiful part of naturalism and many faith traditions. The last thing you want to say is that your scheme is superior. \u00a0If you do, you can expect a response, or to see people walking away. \u00a0Each person will decide about eternal life based on their other values. \u00a0It can be hard for Christians to imagine, but millions of people don’t care about living forever. \u00a0Millions more might wish for an afterlife, but seeing no evidence for it, learn to accept that we are lucky to be here for a few decades, then depart forever. \u00a0When most humans have died by the age of 5 of disease and neglect, demanding a second life seems the height of ingratitude. \u00a0Besides, death can enhance meaning by serving as a deadline. \u00a0A life that didn’t end would be a prison. \u00a0This is where religion flirts with supremacy: \u00a0eternal life is an extravagant, even outlandish, thing to propose. \u00a0It would be doubly rash, and imperious, to claim special access to it.<\/p>\n
Of course, believers might just like to hang out with others who believe in eternal life.\u00a0 But are we an eternal life club?\u00a0 I would like Interfaith to be inclusive, even of nonbelievers.\u00a0 Anything less would create an unequal setting.\u00a0 In order to be inclusive, Interfaith must avoid endorsing a position on the afterlife, or any other religious view, while welcoming all views.<\/p>\n
We expect even-handedness from our government.\u00a0 This is why we insist on separation of church and state.\u00a0 Why don\u2019t we insist on separation of church and Interfaith Alliance?\u00a0 The answer seems to be that its members are primarily church people who are so accustomed to the fact that there is no expectation of equality in churches that they don\u2019t notice it anymore.\u00a0 Each church knows at least something about what God likes and if you disagree, well, you probably won\u2019t be happy there. \u00a0Interfaith is not free of this kind of insularity.\u00a0 I felt it today when I dared suggest we die when our bodies do.\u00a0 I\u2019m chalking the chilly vibe up to emotion and not taking it personally.\u00a0 But I\u2019m sure I would not have gotten the same reception if I let it slip that I\u2019m transgender or asexual.\u00a0 Liberal religious people are tolerant, but they have their limits.\u00a0 And liberal religious tolerance seems to be a political position, not a universal value.\u00a0 I see Interfaith as choosing its battles, and looking the other way on admittedly lesser issues that would bog it down.<\/p>\n
The problem is that any exclusive attitude is not compatible with our work for social justice.\u00a0 Churches are in a bind.\u00a0 They can not preserve many of the tenets of their identity while being fully inclusive.\u00a0 They have to choose, but Interfaith does not.\u00a0 Interfaith could practice \u2018separation of church and Interfaith\u2019, but they are a long way from doing so.\u00a0 It\u2019s all very churchy, which means exclusivity, which is one of the major reasons people leave religion.<\/p>\n
Back to the afterlife.\u00a0 We must address death, but we can do it without committing to an afterlife.\u00a0 You acknowledged it was uncertain.\u00a0 What would a CPA say when the figures are uncertain?\u00a0 She would say no more than she could justify.\u00a0 We don\u2019t have to say there is no afterlife; we can leave it open, but in your remarks you didn\u2019t do that.\u00a0 You said progressive religion is superior to the \u2018spiritual not religious\u2019 position because it offers the eternal.\u00a0 I don\u2019t think that approach will work with this audience.\u00a0 They don\u2019t need us to have an afterlife, and many of them don\u2019t need an afterlife at all.\u00a0 That\u2019s why they left religion.\u00a0 It is we who need them.<\/p>\n
Of course we should discuss our hopes and fears, but advocating even a filmy doctrine of an afterlife divides people.\u00a0 It leaves the naturalists, atheists, Taoists and many Buddhists out. \u00a0The Hindu afterlife is cyclical and doesn’t include continuity of consciousness. \u00a0It even leaves out many radical Christians and ministers.\u00a0 And it is simply unnecessary. \u00a0Most who believe it will not leave if we are silent about it. \u00a0And by the way, there would be no issue here at all if churches were held to truth-in-labeling laws.\u00a0 In that case, the lawyers would not let you talk about an afterlife.\u00a0 It is an embarrassment that religion often excuses itself from substantiating its most basic claims.\u00a0 Interfaith need not stand under the same cloud.<\/p>\n
When the pitch strays into supernaturalism and eternal life, we lose many good people, people we need.\u00a0 If such ideas are central to your identity, then you will just have to soldier on even if you lose people, as the Catholic church does. \u00a0But if such ideas are not primary, if social justice and equality are the real core of your identity, then liberal churches can grow by offering a place where people can see their efforts multiplied, while staying out of vague claims about eternity.\u00a0 Such ideas are more trouble than they are worth.\u00a0 Each church must decide whether they earn their keep.<\/p>\n
Jesus was clear that following him wouldn\u2019t make you popular.\u00a0 So it shouldn\u2019t be surprising to find we can\u2019t push religious ideas and unite people.\u00a0 We must push good, loving ideas whether they have a religious pedigree or not.\u00a0 Of course each member can push whatever they wish, but as a group, we will be most useful if we avoid favoring a position on supernatural matters.<\/p>\n
What often happens is that religious leaders make a political calculation. \u00a0\u201cWill we lose more people by emphasizing eternity or by soft-pedaling it?\u201d\u00a0 I\u2019d like to suggest there is a moral component that tips the scale.\u00a0 Should we promote the afterlife, even while admitting it is only a possibility?\u00a0 When we buy life insurance, they don\u2019t say there\u2019s a possibility they will pay when we die.\u00a0 That\u2019s how they do things in Vegas, except there they publish the odds and endure external audits.\u00a0 Should liberal religion do less?<\/p>\n
When asked about your own thoughts on the afterlife, you said, \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d and \u201cWe are recycled\u201d.\u00a0 Neither of these is much of a commodity.\u00a0 It seems you want to offer eternal life without any certification as to what it is you are offering.\u00a0 That seems unworthy next to your other achievements.\u00a0 But, alas, it is the norm in religion. \u00a0I’m a nonbeliever, and even I want more for religion than that, particularly for liberal, progressive religion. \u00a0It is fine to offer hope, but it must be backed up better than this, or we risk running a casino, and an after-hours one at that.<\/p>\n
Talk of divine benefits to membership is a very un-progressive aspect of much religion.\u00a0 I honestly don\u2019t know what will make Interfaith grow, but I\u2019d like to see us stick to what unites people:\u00a0 our needs for community, ecology and peace.\u00a0 Religious faith claims are personal matters.\u00a0 But in public, they work against our efforts to be as inclusive as possible.<\/p>\n
Best,<\/p>\n
Don Severs<\/p>\n
I heard Rev. Michael S Piazza speak at an Interfaith luncheon today.\u00a0 He\u2019s a respected and effective liberal minister.\u00a0 He claimed that \u2018spiritual not religious\u2019 people need religion because it offers eternal life.\u00a0 I raised my hand, but there’s never enough time at those things… Dear Rev. Piazza: Thank you for your talk today.\u00a0 I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}