Post

The first year in seminary is supposed to be the time you tear down all of your false beliefs about religion. The middler year, you wander in the wilderness, searching for beliefs and systematic theologies you can affirm and that are helpful to you. Ideally the last year, you start putting together your positions in a comprehensive fashion. Ideally, if you earn a PhD in Religious Studies or a DMin, you explore deeper and wider, perhaps finding more tolerance for other POVs even as your own belief system gains more cohesion. In my years at Yale, stereotypically the TAs (who were mostly PhD students) would write on my papers NOT "This is mistaken/wrong," but "You realize what you're saying is this...."

Thus, the deeper one goes into religious studies, the more challenging it is to relate to most of the people in the pews without being perceived as dismissive (philosophy PhDs have a similar problem grading freshman PHL 101 term papers). I actually find it easier to relate to agnostics and atheists, who have been through the tearing down process of ridding themselves of superstitions and other unfounded beliefs, even if they haven't wandered in the wilderness or built their own religious metaphysics (many have, although they're the exceptions). My partner Mark is one such, who claims "I'm happy for those people for whom religion works, I'm just not one of them." Besides some current and former pastors I've encountered in NS, only one layperson of my acquaintance has the depth of knowledge and praxis to which I can relate, a longtime member of Gay, Closeted Cases, who is, as they say, straight but not narrow. Thus, I tread lightly into extended theological conversations outside of the classroom, as many of those with the deepest religious beliefs have a hard time hearing the depths of what I'm saying. One philosophy student of mine wrote on her final evaluation, "I don't see how Dr. George can be a Christian minister and say such evil things about God." Like David Hume, I simply challenge the unjustified arguments for religion, which are many and common, as opposed to religion itself. A LOT of true believers have no theological knowledge of their own, except what they've heard in Sunday School and in sermons and are thus unprepared to enagage me, when I have a much deeper knowledge of scripture and theology than they do. I have no desire to be the bull in a china shop, stomping on cherished beliefs and shattering the whole works without being there to help pick up the pieces. Thus I have a hard time relating to people on hot-button social and religious issues, when I'm quite clear on what I myself now believe, but remembering how painful it was to get here from where I was.

Does this make sense to most of you? The immediate context is our recent conversation of gay rights vis-a-vis religion, but the topic could be any number of things. I don't want to present myself as the ultimate authority on religion (that's a philosophical fallacy), but I don't want to leave people in blissful ignorance, either. IMHO, religion should be less about finding comfort than the somewhat terrifying encounter with a living God (which is why some people call practicing religious people "God-fearing"). Assuming such a thing exists and inspired scriptures, 99% of what most laity believe is superstition, cultural belief, or over-generalization. Many less-educated pastors are that way, too, but in theory they've been exposed to the same books and resources as I have, thus I'm less hesitant to challenge their beliefs. For me, experience and especially reason are more important than scripture and tradition (most Christians believe vice versa). I don't want to end the conversation prematurely or leave anyone feeling they've been bullied into silence--there are perfectly valid reasons one could disagree with me and I usually try to make that point, too. An example is J.C.'s reference to "the sin of Soddom." A LOT of people assume there he meant what we now call homosexuality, but that's a less cogent answer. I think if you read the story of Soddom and Gommorah carefully, one will ultimately find their sin was inhospitality, not gay sex.