August 6, 2023
© Rev. Janet Onnie
In 1971 John Lennon wrote the wildly popular song, “Imagine”. Some of the lyrics, “Imagine there’s no heaven, No hell below us,” is core Universalist theology.” No one is damned, all are saved. What I find problematic, however, is the lyric, “Imagine there’s no countries, nothing to kill or die for – and no religion too.”
And also no religion?? The implication is that religion is the basis for all conflict and if we could just do away with religion the whole world will be at peace. I take issue with that idea. The impulse to look beyond oneself for truth and meaning – religion – is a basic human construct. Religion takes the rap for a lot of human misery. But I don’t think the religious impulse in and of itself is the problem. Karen Armstrong’s book “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence” informs and supports my view. She’s written an astonishing journey from prehistoric times to the present. It’s not an easy read, but Armstrong had an idea there was something more to the accepted view of religion as the cause of violence. She believed the idea had merit before she saw the truth of it. Her belief drove her to do research into the subject which resulted in a dense 528-page book that makes the compelling argument that it is the struggle for power, not religion, that is the source of violence.
I don’t intend to give a book report this morning or to argue with John Lennon. Instead what I’d like us to consider that believing may be a prerequisite to seeing. Belief in a thing does not always depend on seeing – on visual perception. In fact, the ability to perceive a thing may hinge on belief – belief in the possibility that the thing can exist. We see this in all fields of human endeavor: in literature, in art, in science and engineering, in technology, and in our own lives and relationships.
Let me give you a concrete example. My beloved is red-green color blind. It’s a trait common in the male of the human species. Nelson absolutely cannot differentiate between the colors red and green. He can only see a red bird in a green tree when I point out that there’s a male cardinal in that tree. Or a red flower on that bush. Or a red anything against a green background. He can only distinguish the colors as separate when someone he trusts points it out to him; when he BELIEVES there’s something to see. Furthermore, when he thinks that it’s important to try to see it in its entirety, if only to please me.
[Read more…]