Events - Previous Events
My Search for a Contemporary Faith
- Date:
- Sunday 21 February 2010
- Time:
- 11:30am
- Location:
- St Michaels Uniting Church
Seminar: Professor Brian Smith
Prof Brian Smith has a Bachelor of Engineering degree from Melbourne University and a Ph. D. in Control Engineering from Cambridge University. He was Dean of Engineering then Head of RMIT (from 1979 to 1989) Prof Smith was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Sydney from 1989 to 1994 and Chairman of UniSuper from 1994 to 2006.
He is currently serving as a member of the boards of RMIT Foundation and Cairnmillar.
"My Search for a Contemporary Faith"
Please find the Full Transcript below
Thankyou for coming this morning.
Several months ago I had a conversation with Francis Macnab in which I said I was dissatisfied with my grasp of the New Faith. Afterwards I realised my problem was that, whilst I had been a searcher for some time, I really had no clear idea of where I had reached in my search. I thought it might help me if I tried to assemble my chaotic thoughts on religion in a more ordered way, so I set about writing what I called ‘My Search for a Contemporary Faith - Progress So Far.' I sent a copy to Francis with the comment, ‘I doubt you will read anything new or exciting in this but I thought I should send you a copy, seeing you are mentioned so often within it.' When Francis suggested I should share the contents with a wider audience at St. Michaels I was dubious, thinking it presumptuous of me to do this. I remain dubious, but we are here now so I had better get on with it.
Before I speak about the benediction that has been so valuable to me I think I should tell you some of my general beliefs about God and religion so you know where I am coming from. I am from a Protestant Christian background and still believe that the teachings of Christ have much from which we may learn, but the journey each of us takes is an individual one and will be greatly influenced by the culture in which we live. I also believe that whilst there may well be a set of common insights within every relevant and life-affirming faith, the details may differ between each individual and each group.
From earliest times humankind has felt compelled to explore the possibility that there is something, which exists beyond the reach of our senses, outside and/or deeply embedded within the physical universe. In seeking to understand the world around us and, more importantly, our place in it, we appear to be drawn instinctively to contemplate the existence of a supernatural entity. This instinct I will call ‘The God Instinct' (a name I feel sure has been coined already but, by whom I do not know).
By its very nature we cannot describe the nature of God directly but must use metaphor. The metaphors we have used through the ages are products of their time and vary in their validity and power as our culture, our knowledge and our circumstances change. In our search for satisfying myths and metaphors we are necessarily limited by our own knowledge and are prone to use images most familiar to us. We tend to make God in our own image. Karen Armstrong refers to this metaphorical way of thinking as mythos and the logical approach we are more familiar with these days as logos. She draws upon the differences between these two modes of thought to illuminate her analysis of religious issues and I find her approach very appealing.
Many of you will be familiar with her ideas, but just in case there are some who are not let me quote a little from her writing.
‘A myth is true therefore because it is effective, not because it gives us factual information. A myth is essentially a guide; it tells us what we must do in order to live more richly. ...'[1]
‘Logos is quite different from mythical thinking. Unlike myth, logos must correspond accurately to the objective facts. It is the mental activity we use when we want to make things happen in the external world: when we organise our society or develop technology.'[2]
‘In the pre-modern world, most people realised that myth and reason were complementary; each had its separate sphere, each its particular area of competence and human beings needed both these modes of thought.'[3]
Karen Armstrong suggests that in modern times we have lost touch with the power of mythos and I certainly am much more comfortable with logos than mythos.
I believe, whether we acknowledge it or not, each of us chooses or accepts a concept of God and this concept strongly influences the way we live our lives. We vary in the extent to which we pay conscious thought to our concept of God and its consequences, from those who do so hardly at all to those for whom it is a consuming focus. Religious people describe their concept of God as their faith, but I think all people have a faith of one kind or another. Some of us attach to that faith an elaborate code of beliefs, others eschew dogma, and yet others see no need to develop their faith beyond an instinctive and unformulated attitude to life. At times people have joined together in a common faith and thus become followers of what we call a religion. I believe that all forms of religion and, more widely, all forms of spiritual exploration, have as their foundation the God instinct.
Early in his career, Francis reached the insight that there is a strong two-way relationship between our concept of God and our psyche. For each of us, our concept of God is strongly influenced by the state of our psyche, and the development of our psyche is in turn strongly influenced by how we relate to God. That insight continues to inform his work and is, I think, a key concept in considering God and its implications.
Throughout our lives we are continually called upon to make decisions and choose from among the options available to us. These decisions vary widely in their importance and in the amount of attention we pay to them. Decisions are made more easily when we are certain in our beliefs, and the anxiety we feel over a decision increases with its importance and with the uncertainty we have in the beliefs relevant to that decision. We crave certainty and this craving can lead us to affirm or continue to maintain concepts or beliefs about God that can no longer be justified. On the other hand, to allow oneself to be continually undecided (agnostic) is just as inhibiting. How we manage this dilemma is one of the keys to achieving a valuable faith.
We also gain great comfort and assurance from the support of others. In seeking relationships with like-minded people we have been drawn to forming religious communities. This too can be a two-edged sword. Our innate tribalism leads us to build walls around our community, excluding those who do not exactly share our faith, or, worse, creating hostility even to the extent of violence and persecution. Another unfortunate aspect of human nature is that as our communities grow larger, hierarchies, power struggles and politics distort and subvert the original aims. Religious groups are no better in this regard than other human organisations. The pursuit of power and the maintenance of a dominant position is a pervasive and strong instinct that can distort the thinking of all of us, religious leaders more than most.
For me, a contemporary faith must be credible and satisfying in the current context. It must engender a system of beliefs that are life-enhancing for its adherents and it must successfully deal with the issues I have already raised. It is with these views that I come to the benediction of Francis Macnab.
Of all the many good things that Francis has written and said, the one I find the most powerful, the most elegant, the most poetic and the most profound, is the benediction he often uses.
‘May the God you see in all the colours of creation
Arouse in you a sense of awe and wonder.
May the God who is a sacred presence
Be real to you.
May the God who is a source of inspiration and courage
Keep calling you forward.
May your God go with you and bless you,
Today and always.'
Before going to the detail there are two general points I would like to make. In the first instance, Francis expresses a series of wishes or hopes for us in our search for God. He does not tell us what God is like but suggests where and how we should search for God. Secondly, he links our concept of God to the need we have for a faith which enables us to live richer lives. For me, this benediction encapsulates the key elements we need to discover in our search for God.
Turning to the details:
‘May the God you see in all the colours of creation arouse in you a sense of awe and wonder'
From earliest times humankind has wondered how the universe was created. Creation myths abound, each of them reflecting the culture of the time. Many of them depict God as a person or set of people with supernatural powers. In reaching opposite conclusions about God as the creator, creationists and atheists both seem to me to miss a key point. The creationists insist that God must have been directly involved in the creation of the universe and therefore evolution cannot be a correct description. The atheists use the opposite argument - that evolution demonstrates no role for God. The current scientific description of the evolution of the universe from the big bang through the creation of the stars and planets to the beginning of life itself, and the subsequent evolution of a myriad of life forms, is a process of creation that fills me with much greater awe and wonder about God than any literal interpretation of Genesis.
The realities of the universe do provide difficulties for us in wondering about God. It is clear the universe is a dangerous place and that many forms of tragedy befall undeserving creatures. The natural food chain ensures that, in order to survive, life destroys life. A primitive response was to take this reality as a sign that the gods must be bribed by sacrifice to allow a benign life and the myth of ritual sacrifice continues to arise in some forms of religion including Christianity. It has no appeal for me as part of a contemporary concept of God.
A more modern but only slightly less primitive view is that, providing you are good, the vicissitudes of the current life will be but a temporary interlude, and you will be rewarded with an eternally happy life. Back in my days in Sunday School it occurred to me that being good for future reward was more self-serving than virtuous and I have not changed that view.
Also, I see no indication that God awaits our entreaties before directly entering the real world to end the drought, bring victory in war or cure the sick. The concept that God is an interventionist of this kind lacks credibility for me.
On first consideration it disturbed me that God appears to have created a marvellously complex system in which there is no way I can expect to be free of danger, anxiety and tragedy. But wait a minute. The more we learn about the universe, the more ridiculous and arrogant it is that we should consider ourselves at the centre of this creation with special privileges. Compared with other life forms, we have far greater ability to change the circumstances in which we live and to deal with the problems that arise. We also have other resources that I will refer to later. More fundamentally I am led to wonder what life would be like if we did live in a constant state of contentment. If we had no conception of danger, anxiety and tragedy, I cannot see that we would experience security, comfort and joy.
Many attempts to explain the religious significance of the creation, maintain a view of the creator as a benign figure. By clinging to this image I feel we make our faith untenable. We are far better off to accept that our knowledge of the universe, its creation and evolution will always be inadequate, and seek a faith that enables us to live to the fullest in all the circumstances (both adverse and favourable) we confront through our lives.
And speaking of arrogance, I feel that those who see the theories and discoveries of science as embodying the real truth, might proceed with greater humility. Scientific theories fall into two categories - those that are discredited and those that are provisional. All of them are a human description of reality rather than reality itself. Newton developed his three laws of motion to account for the motion of all objects, one result being that he was able to make accurate predictions of the movement of the planets. The use of his laws facilitated the development of many technologies that we continue to benefit from. But Einstein was able to show that, pushed to the extreme, Newton's laws were not accurate and should be replaced with his theory of relativity. Again that theory was found wanting when it came to explaining the observed behaviour at sub-atomic levels and quantum theory was developed as a more productive although still not well understood approach. The great advantage that scientists have over many religious people is that as soon as they see that their theory does not adequately deal with new observations or new circumstances, they modify or discard the old theory. Like our search for God, the search for a scientific explanation of the universe is an unending one.
Science is one of a number of creations, additional to the physical universe, which can give us cause for wonder and awe. The creations of art, music, poetry, dance, science and mathematics, all have the capability to do so. It is likely over the ages that art, music, poetry and dance have led us to contemplate that mystery I call God as often as our thoughts on the creation of the physical universe. For those fortunate enough to be conversant with some elements of science or mathematics there are further opportunities to wonder what lies behind them. Anyone who has only a slight familiarity with number theory, the behaviour of prime numbers for example, is immediately touched by the mystery behind their behaviour.
I feel there is ample reason and example to wonder at the God I see in all the colours of creation. I also feel awe, but how to express that awe is a problem for me. A common metaphor for God, still used within the Christian church and even at St. Michael's, is that of a warrior king. It is hard for me to imagine a less appropriate figure for the God I see in the colours of creation. Likewise my God has no interest in the sycophantic obeisance so often offered up in religious services.
The awe I feel for God is more akin to the awe I have for great people like Martin Luther King and Mandela, people of extraordinary intelligence and imagination, virtuoso performers, great artists, and even preeminent athletes. So how do I properly express my awe and are there rituals, akin to the existing religious services, which I would find more satisfying and helpful in expressing my awe? I wish I knew.
May the God who is a sacred presence be real to you
Some of my problems with awe may be solved if the wish expressed in this section of the benediction comes to pass.
I believe it is difficult to be close to someone or something for which we feel awe. Awe can often create a barrier to forming a close relationship with the figure of awe. When my awe is not for another human being but for God, my difficulty is even greater. What the benediction seeks is for the presence of God to be tangible.
When we speak of the sacred I think we are describing experiences which bridge the gap and bring us close to God. These experiences vary between people, but include those that can occur through ritual, prayer, meditation, in times of heightened emotion - both joy and grief, through the contemplation of works of art, music and literature, and through significant shared experiences with other people. The deeply religious develop rituals and practices that enhance such sacred experiences for them.
To a greater or lesser degree each of us has these sacred experiences. Those who doubt the existence of God describe them as self-induced and the behaviour of the more extreme religious sects suggests to me there is truth in this assertion, at least some of the time. It is for me an example of how a distorted psyche can lead to a distorted faith. As with our attempts to understand the role of the creator, it is not possible to achieve a comprehensive understanding of how the sacred is experienced. What I believe Francis to be saying is that you will be far better off (blessed) if your God is a sacred presence for you and that experience is real. It is the linkage between each of the words God, sacred, presence and real that is vital.
The problems I experience in the distance between myself and a supernatural entity, for which I feel awe, diminish when I experience a sacred presence. Francis often uses the word ‘presence' as an alternative to the word ‘God' and the appreciation that God is present is, I believe, a key requirement for developing a sustaining faith. But that appreciation cannot be simulated; it must be real. I also believe that the reality will be stronger for me if I can find more meaningful ways to experience the sacred.
I also acknowledge that the manner in which each of us experiences the sacred presence will vary widely, depending on our culture and our life experience. I find no difficulty in accepting that those from any of the non-Christian religions will experience a real, sacred presence in ways that are very different from the way I do. I find it difficult to accept that fundamentalists of any tradition can, in this modern age, experience a real presence in writings that are contradictory and at odds with careful observation. It is easy for me to dismiss those that seek to impose their faith by violence, and see them as suffering from damaged psyches. Yet I know good-hearted, virtuous people who seem to need to believe the literal truth of the bible and the creeds in order to sustain the reality of the sacred presence for them. There are many holes in my understanding of God as a sacred presence.
May the God who is a source of inspiration and courage keep calling you forward
We move now to the impact our concept of God can have on us. All the key words in this section of the benediction are positive. There is no hint of the traditional view of God, up there, sitting in judgement on us miserable sinners. Francis often uses the statement that ‘we are accepted'. I take this to mean that no matter who we are, what we have done and whatever our circumstances, God remains a source on which we can draw. Using this inspiration, we can change our view of ourselves and others and trigger positive actions and responses that will enrich our lives and potentially the lives of others.
This is not to say that we will always succeed and that life will be easy. That is why we also need courage to deal with loss, hardship and failure.
The final phrase, ‘keep calling you forward', emphasises that we should keep moving forward and not be mired in the past.
May your God go with you and bless you, today and always
Seen in its entirety, the benediction moves from a concept of God that strikes wonder and awe, through a sacred presence to a personal companion. It is not God but your God that goes with you and blesses you. I cannot conceive of a metaphor for a companion that does not evoke a person and yet I find the concept of God as a person inadequate and smacking of creating God in my image. As I said earlier, I am a strongly logos oriented person and perhaps need better to understand and embrace the mythos of God if I am to enjoy the blessing of a full relationship with God.
The benediction is not intended to cover all aspects of faith. Nevertheless, I find it a compelling account of how we might relate to God and do see some of its omissions as significant. In the first place there is no mention of God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and no mention of Christ. I believe that it is possible to approach the God of the benediction from a variety of traditions or, indeed, no tradition at all. Only the God instinct is required. It has always bothered me that Christians appear to believe that those people who had never heard of Christ could not achieve a satisfactory relationship with God. I welcome the thought that a Christian path is not essential.
But where and how does this place Christ? I have already said that I do not associate God in any way with ritual sacrifice. The idea that God sent Jesus to die for our sins has no place in my concept of God. I see Jesus as a man who had achieved the blessed relationship with God that the benediction hopes for all of us. Much of the detail of his life, death and resurrection, found in the Bible, I view as myth. As Francis has often pointed out though, the details of his life and death are not nearly as important as his words and actions, which give a rich guide as to how we should live. And how we should live is an important question, understandably not addressed in detail in the benediction.
I believe that the insights of Christ, including some which inform the wording of the benediction, together with the findings of science, allow us to develop a number of important attitudes to our own lives and the lives of others. First, while we are pre-eminently well placed to observe the wonders of creation we have no cause to consider ourselves the focus of that creation. We should live with humility, according the rest of creation the consideration and compassion we desire God and others to show for us. As I said earlier, because life destroys life to survive, I do not believe I should avoid killing any living being, animal or vegetable, but I believe I should respect all life, regardless of its form. More narrowly, of course I should respect and be considerate of all human beings. Jesus went out of his way to make the point that all people warrant our respect, support and compassion, including those who would do us harm. Applying the test of whether this general principle is followed or avoided in a particular form of religion or social creed, gives me a strong guide as to the authenticity of that religion or creed. Karen Armstrong points out that compassion is a common value in all the major religions. I would add that it is a value more commonly expressed in theory than practice.
Many ethical decisions are far from clear cut and we will often be called upon to choose between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods. Thou shalt not kill sounds clear until you or your loved ones are confronted by an axe-wielding psychopath and you have the means to shoot him before he does harm. Telling the truth at all times again sounds the right thing to do until you are able to spare hurt and embarrassment to an individual without detriment to any others by not adhering to the truth.
We also need to recognise that the circumstances surrounding an ethical decision can change over time. Therefore I believe we do well to avoid constructing an elaborate, hard-and-fast ethical code, but should make our decisions in each individual case by following three broad principles:
All life warrants our respect and consideration.
All human beings, regardless of anything about them, including their attitudes to us, should be treated in the way we wish others to treat us.
We should aim to protect people from any harm that we or others might be liable to inflict upon them.
We should take these as a base and use a clear-headed analysis of the particular circumstances to make each particular ethical decision.
I recognise that the ethical position I favour is very much a humanist one and could be reached without any reference to God. That does not trouble me. What troubles me is the rigid and detailed ethical dogma prescribed by many religions. We do not need a religious faith to believe in the importance of living according to ethical principles but, in my view, a connection with God like the one wished for in the benediction greatly assists in living an ethical life. (I developed my ideas on ethics before reading Richard Holloway's book, Godless Morality. Now that I have read his book, I find he has put my point of view more completely and more lucidly.)
When it comes to assessing the actions of others I think Jesus was speaking good sense when he urged his listeners to be slow to judge. It seems obvious to me that a father who throws his child from the Westgate Bridge is not sinful or evil but deeply disturbed. As I proceed down the scale of misdeeds from murder to theft to lack of courtesy I find it difficult to draw a line where the action is no longer principally a sign of a damaged, immature or insensitive psyche. Perhaps there is no line. Of course anti-social behaviour harmful to others must be controlled and this brings forth all the machinery of the law, including punishment. I think all forms of what we call punishment should be directed to protecting others from the transgressor and changing the psyche and hence the behaviour of the transgressor. Punishment as a deterrent to others committing the same crime has its place, but punishment as some form of pay-back or revenge does not fit within the ethical principles I favour. Again I believe that we do best to eschew hard and fast prescriptions, and need to look at each individual situation to decide which blend of protection, deterrence and psychological repair best fits the case.
Another teaching of Jesus that appeals to me is his encouragement for us to live in the present. This is not to overlook making prudent provision for the likely future or to forget the past, but if we are to live life to the full we should aim for every moment to be as rich as we can make it. Of course we have to cut our toe-nails and pay our bills but too often I, at least, am burdened by the past or worried about an uncertain future.
In developing my concept of God I have been influenced by the thoughts of others, my conscious musings on these issues and, I expect, by the unconscious effects of my upbringing and past experience. To what degree each has been influential I cannot tell. In my consideration of most things I find that I value logical consistency more highly than many other people do. I have yet to find a consistent presentation of the concepts and implications of a contemporary faith in any religious service, although the services at St Michael's come closer than any. This is a problem for me as I seek to refine my faith.
This brings me to the end of my account of the unresolved collection of beliefs and attitudes I have reached so far in my search for a contemporary faith. At least I now have a clearer idea of where I have reached in my journey.
And I hope it has been of some use to you. I would be happy to try to answer any questions but much happier to hear any of your reflections on what I have presented or indeed failed to address.