There aren’t many places in public life where it’s safe to discuss religion—and not just your own religion, but the religious beliefs of those around you: colleagues, friends, and strangers alike.
Several times last Saturday night, guests at our first Global Nomad Religion Salon said that their hearts were racing because we were getting into intellectual discussions about faith—why it matters today more than ever, how you can be a part of an organized religion and still reject some of its tenets (or acts done in the name of that religion), and whether multi-faith efforts can eventually help bring peace to war-torn nations.
Guests started to arrive though the grand doors of the Church of the Heavenly Rest around 7p.m. and were greeted by a stunning sight: Just inside the narthex, was one long table flickering with votive candles and set for 42. As guests sipped wine and got to know one another, the backdrop—empty pews, an enormous nave, and a colorful altar—seemed to grow more holy and mysterious by the minute.
I chatted with writer and philosopher Anthony Gottlieb, one of the evening’s experts, before introducing myself to an FBI agent, and Agnes Barley, a painter. Sophia Trapp, a sustainability and environmental consultant who, as founder of Productions 1000 runs the International Earth Forum, told me that she and her boyfriend had driven up from D.C. especially for the Salon. She heard about JANERA.com months ago from a German friend living in Portugal—and has been a member ever since. “You guys are my tribe!” Sophia said with gusto, ticking off the countries—Argentina, England, Mexico, Germany—that she’s lived in over the past five years. (With extensive work trips to China and Mongolia.) “I’m a Global Nomad!”
Elizabeth Garnsey, our co-host for the evening and a priest at the Church of the Heavenly Rest, welcomed us all to the table and reminded us that “the very root of the word religion, religio, has to do with connecting, or reconnecting.” She thanked us all for coming, from a wide variety of backgrounds, to discover some common ground—yet asked us to agree to disagree. “I want us to have honest and non-superficial conversation,” Elizabeth said. During the salad course, the six experts introduced themselves, saying one or two things about why faith is important in today’s global (and increasingly small) world. Here are a few of the details I remember. (Next week, a clip of the dinner will be posted on ForaTV.com.)
Nearly all the speakers had this in common: a commitment to multi-faith efforts—be they discussing health care and the economic crisis, or bringing children from war-torn countries together in a neutral location to learn how to communicate and collaborate despite religious differences. Dr. Uma Mysorekar, the President of the Hindu Temple Society of North America in Queens (and also a gynecologist), opened by saying that religion, to her, is about service to humanity—helping the needy and guiding today’s youth. “Even those who claim they aren’t religious are religious,” Myosorekar said, as long as they are serving humanity.
Chloe Breyer, an Episcopal priest and founder of the Interfaith Center of New York, reminded us that, though most church-goers would say that the “important stuff” goes on at the altar, it actually goes on at the back of the church, where we were gathered. Breyer, who is also on the religion board of the Council of Foreign Relations, spoke of the need to extend beyond our tribe and welcome the other.
“The religious diversity of our own communities is vital to security,” said Justus Baird, who is a rabbi at a Christian seminary (“a joke that is not lost on me,” he said). As director of the Center for Multifaith Education at Auburn Seminary, Baird connects with religious leaders of many traditions to work on public events and education, and also runs an international leadership program called Face to Face/Faith to Faith, which equips high school teens from South Africa, Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, and the United States with the tools to pursue peaceful intervention.
After we’d all finished our entrées (and hopefully, an absorbing conversation or two), Janera asked us to count off and play musical chairs so each of us could get a chance to meet new people. I bid farewell to Sharon Salzburg, the Buddhist teacher and another of the evening’s experts, promising to come to one of her meditation classes at the Tibet House soon. Salzburg, who had just returned from D.C., where she joined the Sacred Circle conference at the National Cathedral with Karen Armstrong, is one of the founders of the Insight Meditation Society in Barre, Massachusetts. (She’s also a contributing editor at O: The Oprah Magazine.)
During dessert, each expert summarized some of what they talked about with their tablemates. Anthony Gottlieb’s end of the table was engaged in questions of science and religion, he said—the way in which physics points to a creator. They swapped notes about books, too, particularly Jennifer Michael Hecht’s “Doubt,” which has an interesting section on Ecclesiastes, and how it focuses on the importance of living in the here and now, rather than fighting over theories of the origins of the universe or who will go where in the afterlife. Faisal Devji, a professor of history at the New School University and our Muslim expert said he and his table-companions discussed self sacrifice in its less reprehensible guises, such as wanting to reduce your carbon footprint. Whether or not you, as an individual can change global warming, it’s ethical to do what you believe.
The evening ended with a call to go out into the world and practice faith in something larger than the individual—whether that faith is in science, environmentalism, or religion—and make it manifest in the world.
Hannah Wallace is the Senior Editor at JANERA.com
Bookmark to:
Add a Comment
Mark Moorman | 06 Apr 2009 | 15:46:36
Admittedly, a rather oxymoronic title, but “non-believer” is being used simply as a synonym for “atheist” and should not be taken to mean one who believes nothing. It was put into French as a tip of the hat to Pierre Duhem and his book, La théorie physique son objet et sa structure (1906) whose final chapter “Physique d’un Croyant” also presents an unexpected juxtaposition of terms. The point is simply that even atheists have their creeds which lie beyond absolute and certain justification. I was prompted to write by Elizabeth Garnsey’s , tolerant, thoughtful, and welcome remarks here on religion. I will be brief. A few comments on Garnsey followed by a few of my own.
Garnsey was correct to point out how welcome Obama’s inclusion of non-believers was to those of us in this camp. Few groups are as reviled as atheists and we always face, in day to day life, a certain tension with regard to whether or not it is “approriate” to let our religious standpoint be known. To simply state it when directly asked can bring offense in a way that is not the case in announcing a traditional relgious identity. Often the consequences of so doing are a perceptible loss of esteem from those who have been so informed. I applaud Garnsey’s effort to reach out to and be inclusive of atheists to whom she accords a co-equal status with traditional believers. I feel compelled to take issue with her assertion that what atheists and traditional theists share in common is a “search for the truth.” It is not that atheists have a monopoly on such searching. It is conceivable that any given atheist was raised by atheistic parents and have simply adopted the dogmas a prejudices of his or her parents. However, it seems that for the most part atheists usually come to their position as the result of a search for the truth, and that theists,more often than not have had their beliefs inculcated in them as children. There is another difference, religion is, par excellence, the claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth, the alpha and omega, once and for all. This reverses the normal argument that atheists display “pride” in the face of the universe; it seems to me that the religious claim, being so strong, ultimate, and far reaching, displays a great deal more pride than the non-theistic one.
I move on to some personal (and hence very dubious) remarks on these matters. I think many atheists make a mistake when they view religious doctrine as simply false. My own view is that they express some truth both as a matter of ethical content and as an expression of human need. There is, to steal a title from Chateaubriand a “genius” in religion that should not be casually ignored. Here I come to some articles of secular faith. I am part of a civilization, call it Western, but Western as constantly being modified and enriched by global civilization. Two important pillars of this culture were Socrates and Christ. I quote from I know not where: “Socrates taught the love of wisdom, and Christ the wisdom of love.” These insights must be articles of faith for even the atheist. Of course, to speak of “Western Civilization” is itself a mystification and, at best, a partial truth. A cold, hard gaze at the history of that “civilization”reveals mostly a chronicle of barbarism. But this is precisely why its core values are articles of faith, in belief in the reality of the unseen. I do not mean to exclude the so called non-Western religions. I would argue that there is a truth, a value, a genius to be found in Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., and perhaps even in non-extant religions as well.
I will close with some beliefs that must, sadly, again separate the non-believer from the faithful. It is my view that we are finite individuals, of a finite species, living on a finite planet that cricles a finite sun. The demand that our ethics and our existence be justified infintely via an immortal soul or a system of eternal reward and punishment seems to me more a product of human vanity and insecurity than something true. The atheist gives up this demand. He lives ethically and continues to live with no hope of ultimate justification. For the atheist this renders his acts of love and wisdom all the more noble since they are undertaken for their own sake in the here and now. Of course, the universe may well be infinite. This we admit as highly probable. But this infinite is not a source of hope or justification, but one simply of mystical wonder.
Comments