Calling Upon God

During the various sermons at the remembrance ceremonies at the National Cathedral as well as the many other services across the nation, we heard many calls upon God and comments about God's presence and support. I am always still quite amazed at the posture that is assumed during such occasions. As much diversity as exists within such congregations of people, the attitude that predominates is still one of submission to a God that is separate from us. This perspective is just presumed as though the picture of God presented by mainstream religious dogma were the absolute reality. We hear pleas for God's compassion and mercy, asking for things or conditions in a humble, almost subservient manner. The manner suggests that we are asking favors and recognition from a powerful source outside of and above us. This also demonstrates our average position along the scale of consciousness, a position that sees us as powerless. We still maintain a perception of separation rather than an awareness of oneness with All That Is.

The Two Reverends

And then I saw an interview with one of our most well known "spiritual leaders" on the national scene, Rev. Pat Robertson. He was asked about comments that had been made by one of his equally well-known peers, Rev. Jerry Falwell. According to the interviewer, Falwell had made comments about the event, stating that these attacks were the fault of pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals, the ACLU and People For The American Way. "All of them who have tried to secularize America", he said, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'" Asked if he agreed with Falwell's comments, Robertson, apparently reluctant to disagree with the statements, danced around the question and said that he certainly would not have made them on his program but that Falwell's comments were probably taken out of context. He essentially ended up in the same place as Falwell's comments. He said the attacks occurred, "because God Almighty is lifting his protection from us". The gist of it was that we would not be the subject of God's mercy so long as we ignore his word and continue to live immoral and sinful lives.

For many of us who don't hold a perspective of Infinite Spirit (that referred to as God) as being one "who" would withhold love in any of its forms, under any circumstances, the statements of these two reverends are unfathomable. They preach of God's incomprehensible capacity for love, but we wonder, where is it to be found as they present it? Is God really obsessed with attacking and condemning homosexuals, pro-choicers, non-fundamentalists and liberals as these two great uniters do? We know this is preposerous--the very idea could not be further from the truth.

Anyway, having not seen the original comments (though I have since found them), I wanted to see if I could find Falwell's exact statement. I thought I would see if he had a website. Possibly I could find his comments there. What I found instead of the statement was this message on the opening page:

"September 14, 2001

"Despite the impression some may have from news reports today, I hold no one other than the terrorists and the people and nations who have enabled and harbored them responsible for Tuesday's attacks on this nation.

I sincerely regret that comments I made during a long theological discussion on a Christian television program yesterday were taken out of their context and reported, and that my thoughts--reduced to sound bites--have detracted from the spirit of this day of mourning.

Today, I join millions of people throughout this nation and around the world in remembering all those who died, and praying for our nation, the victims of this travesty, and their loved ones."

Elsewhere Falwell apologized, saying, "In the midst of the shock and mourning of a dark week for America, I made a statement that I should not have made and which I sincerely regret. I want to apologize to every American, including those I named".

I have to say, I was having feelings of déjà vu. Over the years I have seen this play many times. These reverends repeatedly make such immoderate attack statements on national news and opinion shows. Then, when there is an outcry from the public, they often back down and issue these types of "taken out of context" statements. These men indeed are the penultimate Certainists. They preach absolute standards of morality and are quite zealous in their attacks upon what they refer to as relativism and secular (non-fundamentalist) society. They constantly talk about conviction and standing on principle. But, we are left to wonder, conviction to what sort of principle--that of attack and separation?

And we also have to wonder why, if they are so certain when they speak for God as they do, why do they then later try to retract their statements? Does this not render their conviction meaningless? If they speak for God, is God then retracting His statements? One wonders why these two reverends (who continue to make and retract such heartless and critical statements) are the dominant spokesmen for this perspective of God? Or is it simply that such heartless sentiments follow naturally from that perspective of that called God?

I spoke earlier of the soul's desire that we surrender. Both of these leaders mean something else when they call upon us to surrender to the will of God. We mean surrender our resistance to love. They mean surrender and prostrate yourself before an almighty, authoritative and punishing master. Alas, this master they hold up before us, can be known only through an absolute literal interpretation of Scripture (The Word).

Despite such perspectives of a God who holds himself separate from us, the tide of love still rises, slowly but steadily.