Baptists and Catholics: Visiting a Baptist Church

I took a visit to a Baptist Church in town. And I am from a Catholic background, so I was interested to see what differences there were between the two.

The traditional Catholic Mass is very structured. The mass is the celebration of the Eucharist, or communion, which is the celebration and remembrance of Jesus and of the Lord’s Last supper where he gave bread and wine to the disciples and told that it was his body and blood.

The Mass is very structured and has many parts. The part are separated into four categories: The Introductory Rite, The Liturgy of the Word, The Liturgy of the Eucharist, and The Concluding Rites. During The Introductory Rite, the priest greets the congregation and then as everyone participates in asking for God’s forgiveness. This is then followed by the Kyrie Eleison and the Gloria–Song’s claiming how glorious God and Jesus are–which are usually sung or chanted. There is then a short prayer called the Collect. The Liturgy of the Word consists of a reading from the Old Testament, a hymn, a reading from the New Testament, and then a reading from the gospel, which is then followed by a homily, where the priest essentially gives a speech, usually relating to the gospel reading. There is then a reading of a creed, usually the Apostle’s creed followed by prayer of the faithful, during which there are intentions for members of the local, national, and global community. The Liturgy of the Eucharist has many parts, but the most important part is the Eucharistic Prayer, where the bread and wine are consecrated as the body and blood of Christ. This is followed by a reciting of the Lord’s Prayer (The “Our Father”) and then the communion be given out to everyone in the congregation. The concluding Rite is essentially the time when members of the church can share about events happening happening in the community. The priest then blesses the congregation one last time and the priest then leaves while a hymn is played and everyone then departs. The Concluding Rite is very brief. Essentially, the whole mass leads up to the point of the transubstantiation, which is the central focus of each mass, as it is the sacrament of communion.

The Fox River Baptist Church in Appleton, Wisconsin

The day I visited the church, it was not a service during which they take part in the ordinance of The Lord’s Supper. The main focus of the service seemed to be the sermon given by the Pastor. During the sermon there were many references to the scripture, specifically the Gospels, and this particular church had a projector projecting the referenced readings behind the pastor as he talked. The sermon took up about 45 minutes of the hour and a half service, so it seems clear that it is an important part of the service. Another interesting aspect of this sermon, was that whenever the pastor made a strong point about the faith people are welcome to say “amen” out loud during the sermon.

During the first half of the service there was firstly a greeting from a community member and events happening in the community were announced at this time. Then all members of the congregation were allowed to greet each other for a few minutes. I was fairly nervous at this point, but everyone was being very welcoming and I met a lot of the members of the church. There were many songs sung and one reading from the book of Psalms before the Sermon started. Certainly there is less structure to the Baptist service than a Catholic one, and fewer symbolic actions and repeated phrases than a Catholic mass.

It is interesting to see how two different branches of Christianity have the same, yet different beliefs. Their beliefs are essentially the same, though they the differ in key areas such as baptism and the communion. It seems that they are both just two different paths to the same goal, and for these faiths, that goal is life with God.

Thanks to the Fox Valley Baptist Church for being so welcoming!

Baptists and Catholics: Creed

The Nicene Creed

Some Christian Faiths do not have a creed, like quakers and UUs. Though the Baptists might believe in some of the substance that is in a Creed like the Nicene Creed. The purpose of not having a creed is to not have a defined way of faith that is the same for everyone. Since the Baptist beliefs are based on the ideas of religious freedom from Roger Williams, it makes sense that the faith itself lets its followers guide their own. However they do believe the ideas expressed in the major Christian creeds, the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s creed, but as a symbol of religious freedom, there is a lack of reciting creeds in the Baptist tradition.

Catholics closely follow creeds as is directed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the official text containing the teachings that the Catholic Church follows. The CCC includes the profession of faith, the Celebration of the sacraments, Life Christ (like following the Commandments), and Christian prayer, like the Lord’s Prayer.

Apostle’s Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and life everlasting.

Amen.

Baptists and Catholics: Evangelism

Nothing...

Sharing information about a certain faith with those who do not have the same beliefs. “Spreading the word of God” is an important part of the Baptist faith. The ABCUSA website states that Evangelism is: “Evangelism is a challenge and an opportunity. Even after 2,000 years of Christian ministry, tens of millions of persons throughout the world have not yet heard the Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ. The world is as much a mission field "ripe unto harvest" now as it was when Christ sent forth his earliest followers to reconcile a fallen creation to its Creator. Evangelism is the mission of sharing Christ and the truths He proclaimed with people who need to receive them.”

There is this idea that though most Americans are Christian, too many do not have a good basic understanding of Christian values and beliefs. And along with that, not enough of them are attending church every Sunday. Interestingly, there are evangelism workshops for Baptists training people in the art of winning over people towards Christ. Help people to learn how to talk about their faith. Sometimes media is used for evangelism, such as newspapers and advertisement. There are also evangelical efforts overseas with missionaries and volunteers.

Catholics do not support Evangelism as much as the Baptists, however it is a part of their religion. It is seen in some doctrine such as the Catholic Church Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which says Evangelism is "an inalienable right and duty, an expression of religious liberty ...”

Baptists and Catholics: Baptism

A key difference is their view on Baptism.

For Baptists, a person is baptized because they know they believe in Jesus Christ. An infant is not able to make a claim to faith or understand a faith entirely, and Baptists–and many other Protestants–see baptism as a public profession of faith. And this idea of Credobaptism as opposed to pedobaptism is major separating factor between the mainstream Christian and the Baptist. Baptism, for Baptists does not have a saving effect, unlike the idea in Catholicism that it wipes away the original sin. This idea of Baptism being for a public display of faith and not for salvation definitely separates itself from the tradition Christian view, and even farther back, it separates itself from the Old testament view seen in Judaism and more conservative Christian faiths where there must be baptism soon after birth so that salvation may occur. Often, Baptists will consider the infant baptism of someone who is converting to their faith to be without effect, and thus rebaptise them. Though they do not consider it a rebaptism because the infant baptism didn’t have an effect on them.

For Catholics, baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, referring to both personal sins and the stain of original sin. It is not often done with affusion, and when one is an infant. It is an essential sacrament, without it no other sacrament can be performed. It is essentially a gateway into the Church and being Catholic. Baptism is seen as a symbolic and literal death and rebirth. Catholics believe there is a true spiritual transformation happening during the baptism. For Baptists, it is seen as entirely symbolic, and for Catholics, it is seen as though the person is actually being reborn “with Christ.”

Baptists and Catholics: The Body of Christ

An interesting aspect of Baptists is seen in the lack of sacraments. If you type in the word sacraments on the search engine of the ABCUSA website, there are no results. What they do have that are the closest thing to sacraments are the two Ordinances: Believer’s Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It is maintained that it is the faith of the individual that saves and supplies God’s grace and not the going through of the sacraments that supplies God’s grace to people.

The Lord’s Supper for Baptist and the Eucharist for Catholics are similar. They both involve are sharing of bread and wine with all the people in the congregation. However, there are some key differences. Baptists do not believe that the bread and wine are the body of Christ but rather that it is a time to remember Christ’s atonement, and a time of renewal of personal commitment. For Catholics, they believe that the bread becomes the actual body of Christ and the Wine becomes the actual blood of Christ. This is called the transubstantiation, and it is a key element of the Catholic faith.

Another difference is that, for Catholics, the sacrament of communion is examined every Sunday, and for Baptists, the Lord’s Supper it is a monthly or quarterly occurrence. Also, sometimes in Baptist traditions, the wine (or often grape juice) and the bread are taken in unison among all members of the faith. Another interesting note, is that among many protest faiths, there are lots of different names for the same, or similar things, this is no mistake. As they are protestant, they want to separate themselves from the mainstream and even other protestant faiths. So that is why they call it the Lord’s Supper because the Catholics call it the Eucharist. The names in and of themselves are symbols.

Baptist and Catholics: History

I have composed a Project comparing Baptists and Catholics. These two faiths share common Christian Beliefs and values, though they differ in Key areas. Please Enjoy. Lets start with a history of the two.

Roger Williams founded the first Baptist church in Providence, Rhode Isalnd 1638. Williams was a protestant from England, and was a proponent of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. He argued that when church and state mix, it essentially becomes forced worship. By the nature of protestant movements, there were many Baptist churches that were operating independently, going in different directions. Also by the nature of the Baptist movement, there was not a central governing body, because, unlike Catholics, they do not follow papal authority. One of the earliest of the large Baptist conventions was the Triennial Convention formed in 1814. 1845, Baptists from the south withdrew because the convention banned slave owners from becoming ordained missionaries and formed the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Northern Baptist convention was founded at Washington D.C. 1907. It was meant to bring a consistency among the separate Baptist groups all over the United States. The American Baptist Convention (as it was called from 1950-1972) was progressive for its time. involved in civil rights, progressive in its views of race relations. However they didn’t really give black members very much power, as was protested by black members in 1968. They were not allowed in decision making positions. Although their first black president of the convention was elected the next year.

Jesus handing to keys to heaven over to Saint Peter

The Catholic Church is the largest Christian group in the world with over 1.15 billion members. The Pope is the main authority. The Catholic traditions holds that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ during the 1^st century AD. The earliest members being the twelve disciples that Jesus had sent out to proclaim his teachings. There were a plethora of Christians at the time of the Roman empire who refused to join the pagan, rituals–and thus most public events. They were often harassed and persecuted. But a dramatic turn in Roman history occurred when Christianity was legalized in the 4^th century AD and in 380 Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. Even after the fall of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church still survived and spread all throughout Europe.

Throughout history they have been several schism as the church changed and society changed. The 11^th century schism between the West (Latin) and East (Greek) churches in Europe and the Protestant Reformation in the 16^th century are the two major schisms in history. Baptists originate from the soon after the protestant reformation when the separatists (from the Church of England) were migrating to North America claiming that the church was corrupt and misleading. Roger Williams is one of these separatists, who founded Baptists.

The Book of Abraham

The Book of Abraham is an interesting part of the Mormon doctrine. there is a lot of speculation about its validity. And rightfully so. There are definitely curious aspects in the writing of the book and curious aspects about the story of how it was written.

Many things are important in determining the validity of a text like this. Take look at the language. If there are many modern terms that would cause suspicion. Also, sometimes the writer might be trying to make it read as though it were old, and would over do it. Some instances of language that that are curious in the Book of Abraham are the use of the word "Heathen" (1:7) and the use of the phrase "and it came to pass..." (which is used 16 times). Another aspect to look at is ideas. If there are modern ideas, it is either way ahead of its time or this is a hint that the text is not as old as it is made out to be; or it is a hint the translation has been modified for some reason, such as to fit into certain ideas that the translator is bias towards. Something that sticks out is the nature of the eternal spirit discussed in chapter 3. God is telling Abraham that everyone is existent before their life on earth as a soul in a giant pool of souls. So, this gives the impression that each person is their spirit, which is controlling the body. This is an idea that is not explicitly addressed in the bible though it is the general feeling of Christians; it is a little more of a modern idea. Also, look at events or ideas in relation to time. If the story teller lives in a certain era, there should be no mention of technology or ideas that are unique to years after the story teller’s life. There is talk of astronomy in the book of Abraham, however this is accurate, because the Egyptians did observe the Moon, stars, and the sun.

Though some parts of the Book of Abraham might seem convincing, there are definitely aspects in the language, and historical-critical aspects that give the impression that this is is not in fact as old as it is supposed to be. It seems that possibly, Joseph Smith made this translation to fit his beliefs and the ideas that he wanted to portray to Mormons.

We Are North-A-meri-can

This was mentioned in my previous blog about Mormons, but I find the connection of Utopian societies and Mormonism fascinating. Utopian societies are attempts of many people living together under certain circumstances in hope that it will lead to an ideal, peaceful, harmonious living situation. And, maybe it's its not so much the Utopian societies themselves being compared to Mormonism, but rather the longing for meaning

 Mormonism seems as though (like most religions) an attempt at finding meaning for one's self and many events in history and everyday life. However, it seems like it is kind of a stretch. For example, the idea that Jesus made a visit to North America when he was from the Middle east. And claiming that the Native Americans are descendants of Laman and they are darker because they do not follow God. It's like the idea of applying a religion to one's life is taken even farther by making direct connections with historical events. Another aspect that is strange is that are some superstitious aspects, such as is found in 1 Nephi involving a gadget: “And it came to pass that as my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness” (1 Nephi 16:10). This is very unrealistic. Because truly, everything happens by chance. Much like is explained by scientist and writer Stephen Jay Gould in his essays; humans look for meaning in random things in nature. For example we look at the stars and we see creatures and if you are born in a certain month your life will go a certain way.

Humans do not like the uncertainty of life. And I feel that Mormonism is yet another attempt in the midst of an era when so many different groups of people are looking for the truth, to find meaning and truth in the world. The making of a direct connection from Christianity to North America and some of the strange and almost superstitious beliefs make Mormonism less believable.

Mormons and the 19th Century

The Book of Mormon is a very interesting book because of it's story of how it came about and the fact that it grasped so many people during the 19th and 20th centuries. The Mormon Faith is attractive to people at this time when so many groups are looking for the answers to life. It has structure and seems to have history that relates to already existing faiths.

One striking aspect found in Third Nephi in the Book of Nephi in Chapter 14 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (3 Nephi 14:15). At this time in American history, there were so many people looking for the right path to go down in life. This was the time that Utopian societies were popping up all over the place. Since this passage would have been written by Joseph Smith in the 19th century it makes sense that he would include this idea. All generations have their false prophets, and at this point in time its the utopian community. Many of these groups were religious societies where there was an attempt at ridding of superstitious though and they believed in science. The Mormon religion is attractive at a time when there are many different ideas floating around; with a seemingly structured belief based on already existing religion. It also gives explanation to the idea of Manifest Destiny.

The book of Mormon seems to lead itself to justifying the Genocide of Native Americans. At the point in time that this was written, there was about only half the states we have today and the rest were owned by European countries and populated by the Native Americans. Also at this time the Indian Removal Act of 1830 which is more famously known as trail of tears. 

"For I will make my people with whom the Father hath covenanted, yea, I will make thy horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass. And thou shalt beat in pieces many people; and I will consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth. And behold, I am he who doeth it. And it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that the sword of my justice shall hang over them at that day; and except they repent it shall fall upon them, saith the Father, yea, even upon all the nations of the Gentiles." (3 Nephi 20:19-20)

This quote clearly promotes violence towards the Native Americans, and justifies it with the idea that violence is done in the name of the Lord, and that it's okay because they don't believe in the Right God.

Mormonism, though it has very questionable aspects, has aspects that make sense for the time in which it was developed. It makes sense even when you look at just a few aspects of Mormonism why this relates to the people of the 19th century.

Progressive Religion?

The Bahá'í faith is (as some sources claim) the second fastest growing religion in the world. And for a reason. When you break down some of the aspects of the Bahá'í faith you can see that it is a very progressive religion and has many features that are attractive to people of our modern world. The idea that the religion has the ability to evolve as well as other important details about the laws and teachings are the most attractive aspects of the Bahá'í faith.

One of the aspects of the religion that jumps out is how badly they are prosecuted against in the middle-east, in primarily muslim areas. This makes it a religion of losers, much like christianity; a religion where a prophet lives a lowly life and then is put to death. Bahá'u'lláh spent much time of his life in prison and was tortured. People naturally want to support the underdog, and this religion definitely hasn't had an easy time surviving. But of course this is not the only attractive part of this religion. The other intriguing aspect of this religion is that it has a progressive aspect. The messengers of God (the "Manifestations of God") have the ability to change a previous messengers teachings, and the idea that every time there is a new messenger, they become the central focus of the religion is something the differs from most religions. And this is definitely an aspect that seems to make a lot of sense, because times change and having a message relevant to the times is important. They recognize the messengers that Islam and Christianity follow, however they recognize that the teachings of their messengers will not always be relevant to the times. Not being stuck to the teachings of a messenger who lived over 2000 years ago, is a smart idea because it helps to make it relevant to the times and that makes it easier to apply the religion to peoples own lives.

This brings us to some seemingly very modern ideas in the Bahá'í faith. The equality of men and women is something that differs from the muslim religion which the Bahá'í faith essentially broke off of, and it is certainly attractive to many women in the world who are struggling for equality. Another attractive quality of the Bahá'í faith is the belief that science and religion should exist harmoniously. Nothing in science should contradict any aspect of the faith and nothing the faith should contradict any aspect of science. This is to many people a refreshing view coming from major religions that reject many aspects of science. And yet another aspect of he Bahá'í faith that seems particularly attractive to the modern world in which we live is the idea that as a member of the faith you are required to abstain from partisan politics. This would look to many like a refreshing view in our confusing and frustrating world of politics.

Now, I would not say the the Bahá'í is a perfect faith; for there are aspects that are going to drive many people away and are not progressive and are a bit odd and do not promote equality. For starters, only two people ever have seen the writings of Bahá'u'lláh, `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, the general population of members is not allowed to interpret the scriptures. This is very very different from other religions and very much limits people's freedom to apply their religion to their own lives. The Bahá'í faith is also against homosexuality; it is prohibited to engage in any homosexual action. Clearly this makes it less appealing to those looking for a progressive faith and doesn't not go along with the idea of equality and justice which the faith stands for.

Though the Bahá'í faith has it's bad parts, it is (compared to many of todays major religions) a fairly progressive religion with some good ideas. And the fact that it has 6 million members in over 200 countries and is growing at a fast rate is an encouraging fact. 

Bahá'u'lláh and Armstrong

The views of Bahá'u'lláh and the views of Karen Armstrong expressed in her short YouTube video "Charter for Compassion"are very similar. Both are looking for a way to unify the faiths of the world to create a better place for everyone to live. However, the Bahá'i method of achieving this is through more of a spiritual view and Armstrong's view is through more of a political view.

The Bahá'i believe that there is a fundamental unity of many of world religions. They accepts this on the basis that the central figures of many of the world's religions are all manifestations of God. They believe that perhaps the different religions are different stages of the constant evolution of the one religion; like each religion has grabbed on to one messenger in the long line of messengers throughout history and has focused on their teachings. There will always be another messenger of God for every generation, who will present teachings more relevant to the times. They are able to change many of the teachings of the previous messenger, though some things that cannot be changed. Armstrong's view of the issue of the issue of unifying world religions comes from a more political approach with an absence of a focus on God and his messengers.

Armstrong says the task of our generation is to build a global community in which all beliefs can live together in peace and harmony. The best way of going about this is to follow the golden rule; love your neighbor; treat others as you would want to be treated. We need to change the conversation from a narrow understanding of religion resulting in intolerance, and the rage in religions against each other. She would like to see the golden rule implemented globally. This is definitely similar to what the Bahá'i strive for, just with a different approach, spiritual vs. political. The Bahá'i believe that the evolution of their religion comes over years in the messengers of God. However, Armstrong, I feel is promoting more of an evolution within the self, through compassion.

They are both different paths to the same goal.

Music and Rasta

The Rasta's music is a very powerful and influential sound that has affected many people lives all around the world. Musically the this music is very distinct from other forms of music, much like Jazz, which didn't sound like anything else, and came out of similar circumstances. Out of oppression (or should we say "downpression"), Reggae has come to spread a message guiding a people for generations. Musically it conveys the message and the struggle well.

A simplistic example of the bass on the down beat with
the chords of the guitar on the off beat

it conveys struggle by not conveying struggle, and rather expressing elements of freedom. Jazz came out of oppressed people in the 1920s, African Americans who were prejudiced against. They created Jazz, and I think that if you ask just about any Jazz musician what Jazz is they will say, "It's freedom." Now Reggae is not freedom in the same sense that Jazz is, in the way Jazz has an improvisational element and often lose structure. Reggae has a rhythm that has a happy feel with its off beat chords on the guitar and bass notes on the down beat. Often this beat as altered and made a little more funky, giving it a more appealing sound. In some songs, like Bob Marley's "One Love," this happy feeling is kept a live though out the song, with a melody in a major key and a pretty straight forward beat. Although some of his more powerful songs like "Exodus," it is in a minor key with a more complex rhythm–although while still staying true to the off beat idea. The bass line of the song "Exodus" has very empowering sound, and wants keep pushing along and moving forward. And This fits with the theme of the song; a "movement of Jah's people" to the promised land.

Bass line from "Exodus"

All the elements described above in combination with good instrumentation and the raspy yet flowing voice of great reggae singers like Bob Marley, you have beautiful music which, wether you are Rastafarian or not, sets your mind free. Now I only really covered a few songs, but I think it is interesting and important to look at not only how a music came about and what it conveys, but also how it is conveyed. How the music itself conveys messages and emotions in nature of what the instruments are doing individually to make the whole sound.

Rastafarians and Ethiopia

The most clear aspect of the Bobo Shanti (though this is of course not limited to the Bobo Shanti) is their emphasis on the return to the Ethiopia. This Short YouTube video, gives us an insight into a Bobo Shanti village in Jamaica, and starts of with a walk through a ceremony celebrating the return to Africa. This focus on the return to Africa is reflection of the Jew's exile from the "promised land" to Babylon. This village feels as though the land to which they belong is in Ethiopia, and hey are placed in Jamaica (and they got there through the slave trading). It is no surprise that their main focus is on the return to Africa as the name Bobo Shanti essentially means Children of Africa.

They of course reinforce these beliefs in other aspects of their religious practices. For example they wear red turbans around their dread locks, red of course being on of the colors of Ethiopia; this, reinforcing the belief that this is where they belong and that they are loyal to the land. Interestingly, they also closely follow the Jewish law. They are strict on diet, and the rules revolving around cleanliness through hygiene. They also are known for carrying around brooms with them to symbolize their cleanliness. They also follow the Sabbath on Saturday from sundown Friday to sunset Saturday. This strict following of Jewish Law shows how much they believe that Ethiopia is the promised land which God favors.

This closeness to the Jewish tradition and the longing to go back to Africa is the most interesting part of the Rastafarian religion. Which is interesting because knowing nothing about the Rastafari movement, I imagine that most people would assume that it is about smoking pot and having a good time. I think it is important to take a closer look at these people and realize that what they believe is closer to what many other people believe today.

imagnes from:

http://www.ethiopianrastafari.info/ethiopianrastafari_patches.html

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/davebulow/wow/

Great Wisdom

The story of Queen of Sheba is an interesting story. If it is a true story, it is amazing that someone would travel that far firstly. And the fascination with knowledge, or more specifically wisdom, is another interesting aspect of this story. This reminds me of Deism when I read an account of the story of Queen of Sheba.

Queen of Sheba

There is such a fascination with knowledge in this account as she desires to travel from (supposedly) Ethiopia to Solomon in Israel. On the way there, as the story goes, Queen of Sheba expresses her desire for wisdom: "Hearken, O ye who are my people, and give ye ear to my words. For I desire wisdom and my heart seeketh to find understanding; for wisdom is far better than treasure of gold and silver." Deism is kind of a religion, but more of a viewpoint that organized religion is not needed and that reason and observation of the natural world will reveal that the world is a creation and has a creator. Deists usually dismiss supernatural things such as prophecy and miracles. Solomon seemed obsessed with wisdom, and of course Queen of Sheba and others were interested in the knowledge of Solomon; "Wisdom is the best of all treasures" the Queen says. However there are definitely differences in Solomon's views compared to a deist's views. Solomon believed that he should let God intervene in his life and he feared God: "He gave commands with dignity, and his replies were made quietly and with the fear of God." This differs from Deism as they believe that God, though he/she created everything, does not interact with people.

Personally, I believe that the deist point of view is a more reasonable point of view, because it seems that God is not totally active in our lives and reason and knowledge is a more reasonable way to go about things (though I am not sure that there even is a god in the first place). Although Solomon's great use of knowledge was ahead of its time. Either way, it is interesting that Solomon used great wisdom in his rule and this concentration on wisdom was prevalent at some point long ago and it is similar to the beliefs of our forefathers (as they were–arguably–deists).

Plastic Art

 Religion is something that is a group phenomenon. We communicate our religious ideas through things in our world. Religion is a communal thing and thus we need a way to share it.

Christ depicted in Native American tradition

Religion seems to be something that comes about naturally in a group. However they way it evolves and grows and the way it is passed on seems to be a more involved process. Each individual will have ideas about what the religion should be like, or have ideas about what should be different here and there. These ideas without expression are nothing. Each person needs to express themself, and they do this through things. These "things" can be a wide variety of items that are tangible in this world. However, things by themselves are nothing. However, when you have ideas combined with things, you get art. And this is the foremost mode of expression in religion as it is legible to illiterate and creates most easily the "powerful, pervasive, and long lasting moods and motivations" needed to convey the religion's message and make it more desirable to pass down.

Some artwork is likely not accepted into the symbolic
vocabulary of most groups

But perhaps art is dangerous for religion. Art is the creative expression of individuals, and this individuality seems contradictory to the group aspect of religion. Art has many benefits for religion though as mentioned before, giving it emotional character and giving the illiterate something to read. Perhaps, although art is individual expression, many people make religious art, and the art that is agreed upon as embodying the religion's ideas becomes symbolic of the art. And anything that would not be acceptable to the group would likely not be added to the vocabulary of symbols. This would make sense because this is how the scripture (an art form in and of itself) is agreed upon. Many people had writings about the christian religion, and at some point hundreds of books of christian ideals and stories had to be sheared down to one big book (The Bible). Perhaps religious art works the same way. Though the art works is from the inspiration of an individual, it is agreed upon by the religious community.

Modern religious art

And one beautiful thing about art is that it has the ability to morph. As times change and culture advances and the old symbols/art does not seem relevant anymore, the art can morph to fit the times better. The ideas that people have are expressed differently from time to time and culture to culture. We often see this as Native Americans or Africans or Europeans display their jesus differently from each other, though they are all depicting the same person. And we see differences in art through time as we have gone from icons to paintings depicting stories to even modern art.


It is fascinating how art changes as time goes on and manages to stay relevant to both the religion and the social times. Art is an emotionally power, versatile and effective device that helps to keep religion alive. It helps keep a religion a communal phenomenon.

Extra Extra Read All About It!

Scripture is a mysterious thing. We are never sure exactly who wrote it or why they wrote. And so much gets lost in translation it can be difficult to really know what is said. Also, since much of the bible is understood to not be taken literally (except by some groups), it seems that it is open to interpretation. But perhaps there is right and wrong way to read the bible. Some people would say there is. Saint Augustine (354-430) who has written such books as Confessions and City of God, writes several books on how to read through the bible properly. And we have a more modern view written by J. Todd Billings on the Christianity Today Magazine website in an article called How to read the Bible.

Looking at the teachings of Saint Augustine, I feel as though he is saying that one should approach the scriptures with a clean heart. The best way to look at the scriptures is with an understanding that material the things that bring us inconstant joy are to be avoided and that we must put our energy into what brings us real happiness (and the only thing that brings us real, true happiness is God (of course). The article by J. Todd Billings essentially comes down to we need to simply letting the "scripture dwell in us" and letting the spirit guide you based on what it may find in this word of God. Billings explicitly makes the point that "we do not have to master scripture and then make it relevant to our lives... In reading the Bible as Scripture, we are not the masters. We are being mastered and enlivened by the triune God."

So in a way these two views of scriptures are similar. They both focus on turning to God as the answer. There are some key differences in their philosophies. For one, they both approve of eliminating confusion and misunderstanding of the written word. Billings seems to address this by telling us to keep sight of the historical context when trying to interpret the scriptures. Augustine is more concerned with the specific symbols that appear in the reading and thinks that learning Greek and Hebrew is the best way around the problem. Also, Billings says that a christian reading of the scripture reveals a God that is more so loving and caring. "one can read the Bible in a way that sees the God of Israel as a judging God, as the antithesis of the God of Jesus, who is supposedly only a gracious (not judging) God. But this is not a Christian reading of the Old or New Testaments," Billings says. He does not mention fearing God as way to read scripture (which–in general–I feel that looking a God as a loving God and not one to be feared is the modern Christian view of God). Augustine on the other hand, says that "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." It seems likely that the modern idea that we are "being mastered" by the word of God has replaced this harsher language of fearing God.

Although these two philosophies on reading the scripture differ, I feel that they are both effective ways to find a similar product. Perhaps there is a definite meaning to the scriptures, but the way we approach them can be individualized.

Religion = Art = Religion

 Art is the central form of communication of religion. Art gives us the power to express emotions and ideas powerfully. It also allows us to pass religious traditions down from generation to generation. 


Geertz's definition of religion states that religion is "A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long lasting moods and motivations." The definition of art is "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." The potential emotional power of art is practically the only way to suitably portray the emotions that religion makes us feel. That is why there have been cave paintings, statues and music throughout the years used to define religions all over the world.

From this...

...to this.  (BWV 244b/29a)

The oral tradition of song has helped cultures pass on myths and tales revolving around their religion. The songs of many cultures have gone unchanged for centuries and centuries and are still around today. Sometimes, songs go through changes, intentional and unintentional. There were lots of simple hymns in Catholic church around the time of J.S. Bach, and he took the melodies of those hymns and made them into his collection of chorales. Physical art such as paintings and statues are more permanent in a way; obviously they (sometimes literally) more concrete then passing down tradition word of mouth. however paintings and statues corrode and songs can change so much that meaning is lost, so it is hard to say that the methods are the best for keeping something alive, however they capture the emotion and pervasive power of religion better than any written record.




However, you could ask, what came first? art, or religion. I find it likely that art and religion are one and the same. When our brains developed this ability and lingering to believe in higher beings and when we became so curious about the world and developed a drive to find an answer to everything (causal reasoning) I imagine that this is also the time that the creative, artistic aspect of humans came about. Also, some of the earliest art we know of has religious contexts (The Caves of Lascaux). Since religion is a means of explaining the world around us and the uncertainty of everyday events, and art is a means of expressing the creative skill and imagination of humans it makes sense that art is commonly used to express religious thought and ideas. And this explains why it is the most effective way of expressing people's strongest religious beliefs and this would also explain why it is such a universal way of religious  expression.

From Sun to Sunday

The Hymn to the Aten

To some extent, the ancient Egyptian hymn to Aten (which can be found here: http://www.touregypt.net/hymntoaten.htm) is very comparable to Psalm 104. Both pieces are very similar in many ways. If you read the two side by side, it is very obvious that these two pieces are practically the same with praise to "God" instead of "Aten." Though, the wording is not exactly the same and of course and any purely Egyptian religious idea in the Aten Hymn is removed in the Psalm 104 rendition. In overall structure that are nearly identical and share similar ideas of creation of the earth, and praising God.

However, it seems interesting that the people who wrote Psalm 104 would use the Egyptian hymn as a model to write a psalm off of. Especially considering the fact that this comes from a totally different Religious context and it comes from the a polytheistic religion. Although it is interesting that this Egyptian Hymn comes out of a movement in Egyptian religion of reformation. Names of the many other Egyptian Gods were etched out of the writings on the temple walls throughout the land. This was all by order of the king Amen-Hotep–who later changed his name to Akhenaten ("Amen" is the name of a previous Egyptian God). This is (debatably) a movement of monotheism. So perhaps is does seem at least somewhat appropriate that this would be used as a model of a monotheistic psalm thousands of years ago. But did the writer of Psalm 104 have that idea in mind; the idea that this hymn is from a (once again, debatably) era of monotheism in Egyptian religion. I guess we cannot really know the answer to that that question. But Perhaps that is the case since this seems to be the only Egyptian Hymn that is borrowed for the creation of a Psalm; and also since this is probably one of few monotheistic Egyptian hymns, it makes sense that this is the one to be used for a psalm. And not mention, the similar themes of praise and creation, etc. that come from the hymn that make this a tempting piece for psalmist to imitate.

Psalms and Music

The Psalms are meant to be sung to music; when performed to music, they are an overall more powerful experience. The different branches of Christianity have different methods to how they perform the psalms. From culture to culture the text of the psalms change and seem to accommodate the cultural differences (as discussed in the previous blog post). Psalms are great modes of expression for cultures and individuals. The Catholic tradition uses psalms tones, similar to Gregorian chants, the music revolves around a certain note, the neighboring tones gravitating towards the main note. Protestant psalms, (ironically) are sung in a similar style; however, the text is different such as seen in the last blog post in The Bay Psalm Book.

Example of Gregorian Chant

 The Anglican tradition uses something called the Anglican chant, which takes un-metrical text by the matching the natural speech rhythm of the psalms to a short metrical piece. There is also modern music made for the psalms such as Igor Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, Leonard Bernstein's Chichester Psalms, and Tehillim by Steve Reich.

This music helps to create, as it says in Geertz's definition, acts as "symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long lasting moods and motivations." Songs create a more memorable and powerful oral tradition, giving a faith more chance of survival. The use of music allows for communal use, bringing people together and each branch of Christianity can use the music in different ways to express their own differences. Also, as famous musicians have done before, the Psalms are used in ways to express themselves; like private prayer. The psalms are most effective when expressed in song, for they create "powerful, long-lasting moods and motivations" and are thus a more powerful experience.

Psalms, Old and New

The Psalms, collection of songs found in the Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, that are often accredited to David (an early ancestor of christ). These are songs of praise and repent, joy and pain, good and evil; when translated from language to language and reinterpreted again and again you could understand that there are subtle differences in the many versions that can mean a lot. When looking at Psalm 2 for example, one version from a modern translation (found at http://www.ebible.org/WEB/Psalms.htm, which is based on The Standard American Version, 1901) in the first line says, "Why do the nations rage,/ and the peoples plot a vain thing?" Now, when looking at a much older version such as in the first version ever printed in North America, called The Bay Psalm Book printed in 1640, we can see more hostility towards the wicked (as might be expected from a puritan tradition):

(Why rage the heathen furiously?/ muse vaine things people do)

This opening phrase is certainly much more hostile than in the modern translation.

In another Psalm, we can see a similar comparison. In Psalm 8 we see the notorious puritan thinking, which you might expect. In The Standard American Version line 4 says, "what is man, that you think of him? What is the son of man, that you care for him?" In The Bay Psalm Book this same line says: 

(What's wretched man,/ that thou dost him remember?/ Or what's the son of man, that thus/ him visited thou hast?)

According to them, people are wretched. And not only are we a little lower than God (The Standard American Version): "For you have made him a little lower than God,/ and crowned him with glory and honor" (psalm 8, line 5). We are a little lower than an Angel: 

(For next to Angels, though hast him/ a little lower plac't/ and hast with glory crowned him,/ and comely majesty)

This view is not surprising from the Puritan culture, who were very strict on themselves and looked in every aspect of life to find where they could be more pure. This passage seems to reflect the idea of telling yourself that you are not ever good enough, in hopes that will compel you to do better.

However you see these passages, it is interesting how from language to language and culture to culture, these 150 songs written thousands of years ago are interpreted differently as they are translated. Giving us insight to cultures old and new.

Natural Progression

Where would Native Americans be today if left alone? That is, if the Americas were not colonized would the Native culture and religion be different then it is today? Obviously, if they still had the land to themselves, they wouldn't be living in reservations (which are often third-world poverty level) and there wouldn't be any hard feelings about the taking of their land. But as you look at the progression of the mound building of the native people, it seems interesting how it progressed from little mounds to bigger mounds, to huge mounds. it eventually became a way for them to send messages of dominance to other tribes; marking their land as their own. This is seen in the case of the village of Aztalan (Now a state park in Wisconsin:  http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/parks/specific/aztalan/) where there are temple mounds and stockade fences around the village. The temple mounds are used to bury important people and to mark the land. This protective stance and land marking seems a far cry from the early mound builders, who simply buried the dead in small mounds (which are often barely even noticeable). I guess what I am getting at is that when I see that these tribes in the midwest became very protective and warlike, that contradicts my view of Native people as a peaceful people, and if the native people were left to progress without the interruption of the manifest destiny driven settlers would they have become even more like the (still manifest destiny driven) U.S. and other war loving countries? Or would there still be an emphasis on the natural world and simple living?

Mounds of Belief

Although it is uncertain what the effigy mounds in Wisconsin are there for and what they mean, you cannot possibly believe that they were just built for fun. Possibly, that unexplainable religious urge that we all seem to have is responsible for these structures. But who built them? There is also uncertainty there. However it is clear that whoever built them had a fascination and possibly a dedication to the natural world - specifically the world of animals. These mounds are quite possibly symbols of the world around them - a dedication to the animal world, much like what is seen in the caves at Lascaux. The animal world around these people was everything to them; it was their order, and making these mounds helped them express the and harness the spiritual power that the mound builders felt the animal world held. Such as Clifford Geertz says in his definition of religion: "Religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence."

It is also possible that these mounds are simply burial sites, as there have been human remains found in the mounds. There have also been pottery, tools and other funerary items found along with the human remains suggesting a belief in the afterlife, suggesting a belief in religious type systems of belief. The animal world being a huge part of their belief, it seems that if these mounds were used as burial sites it makes sense that they are in the shape of an animal. Whatever these mounds are here for and and no matter who made them, it is clear that they are symbolic in a system of belief.

This photo is from Randy Roberts' blog: http://randyroberts.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/effigy-mounds/

Religion is an easy answer for our restless minds when you consider that we have an advanced brain that longs to understand everything. This has to do with the three aspects discussed in the byproduct theory from the article "Why We Believe." Agent detection (e.g. assuming ambiguous approaching creature is something dangerous), causal reasoning (e.g. ability to connect things and make a story out of it, in order to predict and learn), and theory of mind (e.g. the ability to "put yourself in someone else's shoes"). Causal reasoning in terms of religion, is people making sense of extraordinary events by assuming a higher being is responsible. And in the spirit of agent detection, if people cannot tell whether or not a higher being is responsible for an extraordinary event or not it is safer to assume that it is. When looking at this idea that we are willing to believe in the supernatural objectively, it does not seem to make sense. A neo-atheist such as Richard Dawkins would likely agree that this makes no sense. To him, religion is blind faith; that is, it is belief in something that there is no evidence for. Science is how he chooses to fulfill that longing to understand the world, because there is evidence there and there are real tangible things to study.
I tend to agree with Dawkins. There does not seem to be proof of God or a supernatural force acting in our everyday lives, and I instead find wonder in the scientific mystery that is life. I find it more reasonable to look at something that there is proof of and that we can make sense of. I like to think that I keep an objective view of the world. However, I find myself acting religiously in various aspects of my life wether it has anything to with a God or not. 

Should we ditch religion? Often when I look at religion I see the good in it. Every religion is full of doctrine and essentially rules that the members are supposed to follow, and often these are things that encourage people to do the right thing. However I feel that when people take a religion too seriously it gets in the way of doing the right thing. Humans inherently know right from wrong, and often religious thought can help to encourage us to make good choices. However, if taken any farther than this and religion becomes dangerous. And I think that Sam Harris, Author and CEO of Project reason would agree. He argues that religion concerns us with things that really are not important and that will better the human experience on earth. Such things as being concerned with pleasing a God with performing rituals, and placing rules and limitations on our lives. This is seen in politics as religion often comes first (not politics) and initiates conflict and keeps just initiatives from moving forward.

Sam Harris would argue for us to give up on religion as it does not seem to help humans in moving forward. This goes along with what is discussed in the article "Why We Believe" from The New York Times Magazine (March 4, 2007). Religion seems to not have a particular function in the survival of the human race; It consumes energy and takes up time. One explanation is that it is a byproduct of the development of our advanced brains. Which makes sense when you look at the fact that less intelligent creatures do not seem to involve themselves with seemingly useless religious matters. Also, it seems strange that we would adapt to believe in things that are not objectively true, such as when someone dies and we go to thinking that they are still with us in some other way.

To me, it seems that God is a byproduct of our development; however we makes use of this byproduct and use it to better our experience as humans because it does have benefits on the communal and individual level. Yet, when the religious experience is taken too far it becomes detrimental to our lives, and yet it is often taken too far by many people. Perhaps we should ditch religion because we cannot seem to manage it and keep it from hurting others.