The Accidental Anglican

DIY Religion 101

It's interesting to read about people who have pretty much made up their own personal religion.  When they're interviewed, I often wonder if they've ever actually heard themselves say these things out loud before and noticed the logical disconnects in their own theology:

The sort of eclectic spirituality you're describing is appealing to many people. But do you ever think that by picking and choosing from different religious traditions there might be a temptation to choose -- for lack of a better term -- the "fun" things and avoid the difficult things, like moral codes?

It really depends upon the person and the situation. I take what resonates with me from each religion. It's not necessarily what's fun -- it's more a matter of what works. But you are right that some people might do that, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Anyway, I think moral codes are just religion's excuse to judge other people.

So in your view there is no right and wrong? It's all relative? Murder? Genocide? They might be OK?

You know what? If somebody kidnapped one of my kids and I had to kill that person in order to save my child, you bet your ass I'd do that.

I don't believe in right or wrong. It just is. If it feels like something that I should do, then I'll do it. Or if it feels like something that I shouldn't do, then I won't do it.

People who follow traditional religious paths often enjoy having a sense of certainty about their beliefs. And they have a community of like-minded people to worship with, authorities they can turn to for guidance, that sort of thing. Do you, as the creator of your own spirituality, have that sense of certainty?

Absolutely, because I am the one who is in control. As long as I am the one who is in control and I am responsible for everything that happens in my life, of course there is certainty.

But there are so many things you can't control that might affect you. There are senseless crimes, wars, global warming, to name a few. Doesn't that make you wonder about how much control you really have?

I don't see how any of that is affecting me personally. I go on with my life. If there is something I can do to prevent global warming, I'll do what I can. But my life goes on as normal.

What sources do you turn to when you need comfort, guidance or spiritual inspiration?

I meditate. That's all I need to do.

Okay, let me see if I have this straight:

1. She doesn't follow moral codes because they're just an excuse to judge people, and judging people is wrong.
2. She doesn't believe in right or wrong (except, of course, the whole "judging people" part, because that's wrong, period).
3. But if someone kidnapped her child, that would be wrong, too, so killing them to make it stop would be right.  Not that there's really any "right" or "wrong."  It's just ... well ... it's what she would feel was right.
4. All she's interested in is what happens to her directly.  After all, she's in control, and she has everything she needs inside herself.  She has no connection with the rest of humanity - her actions don't impact anyone else, and theirs don't impact her.  Except for the whole global warming thing.  And only if it occurs to her at the time.

So, is it judgmental to say that someone hasn't thought through things very well?

"The Church of Christ Without Christ"

I've been reading Flannery O'Connor's Wise Blood for several days now (about 2/3 through it today), and I keep chuckling at Hazel Motes's "Church of Christ Without Christ" (a.k.a. "Church Without Christ") that he keeps trying to start.

Well, I preach the Church Without Christ.  I'm member and preacher to that church where the blind don't see and the lame don't walk and what's dead stays that way. ... I'm going to preach it to whoever'll listen at whatever place. I'm going to preach there was no Fall because there was nothing to fall from and no Redemption because there was no Fall and no Judgment because there wasn't the first two."

Sounds a lot like Neibuhr's 1938 assessment of mainline liberal theology:

A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.

Hazel Motes, Deepak Chopra, and Katharine Jefferts-Schori apparently have a lot in common.

Everything I needed to know about surviving Anglican schism, I learned from "Earl"

I have a new guilty pleasure: "My Name is Earl"

When this show first hit the airwaves, I dismissed it.  Rednecks and karma.  Who'da thunk it?

But I'm a sucker for good social satire, and being a lifelong resident of the Deep South, I can tell you as an expert: whoever writes this show understands redneck culture.  I mean REALLY understands it.  (I'm this close to adopting "snap!" -- 'scuse me, "suh-na-up!" -- as my new catchprase.)

So now I'm busy catching up on re-runs.  But even with junk food TV, I still can't get away from Anglicanism and theology and all that stuff.

"Earl" plots are never easy to explain, so I won't attempt to unravel all of it here.  (How they ever come up with a synopsis of this show for TV Guide every week, I'll never understand.)  But this week's convoluted plot was all about lying for the sake of unity.

Joy can't admit to her parents that she and Earl have divorced, so she's attributed his absence to going off to fight in Iraq.  She can't tell them her new husband is black, so she's explained away her youngest child's multiracial appearance in an interesting, if scientifically questionable, way.  Meanwhile, Joy's mom has a gambling problem, so she's faking arthritis, paralysis, and kidney failure as a way to get betting money (she tells her husband the dialysis center gives a 10% discount for cash payments).  Joy's dad, meanwhile, has a few secrets of his own.

And as Earl finds out their secrets, one by one, they all echo Joy's mom's favorite refrain: "Don't you judge me!"

Trouble is, Earl's acquired a conscience.  He can't keep lying for all these people - it's  bad karma, as he puts it.  Before long, Earl blabs, and the argument that erupts in the wake of all these revelations lasts all night long Christmas Eve.  But by morning, there are no more secrets.  All that's left, Earl says, is for everyone to just enjoy each other's company on Christmas Day.

So what does Earl learn?

1) Everybody's got some dirt on 'em.
2) Everybody thinks their dirt is worse than everybody else's, and they fear being looked down on for it.
3) Once you own up to your dirt, though, people and relationships heal.  It might even prompt someone else to own up to his or her own dirt.  And who knows where it'll all end?

Earl as a theologian ... who'da thunk it?

Robert Gagnon on Scripture & Homosexuality

Probably one of the best-reasoned arguments for the reasserter view of Scripture on this subject I've ever seen.  Gagnon takes some of the more common arguments in favor of a new view of homosexuality ("God made me this way," the shellfish argument, etc.) and dismantles them, one by one.  A good read.