In search for meaning, try intelligent discussion

By Stephen Miller
- Editor -
The Capitol Hill Times

There is a way that a good preacher uses his lectern. He neither cowers behind it nor considers it merely a means of holding text. He may pound his fist into it, or seem to raise himself off of it, his other hand elevated in exclamation. But mostly, he grips either side of it, bracing himself and leaning forward as if, were it not for the lectern, his entire body would follow his words into the congregation.

When the preacher has mastered that stance, he will have his audience’s undivided attention. And at sermon’s end, when he has expended himself over the lectern, his congregation will leave believing what they heard, because no words that could carry the whole of a man could be untrue.

This is why it is so important that the words being flung across the lectern by the preacher, or priest, or rabbi, or imam, or guru are not designed to tell a truth that no man, as much at odds with life’s biggest questions as his audience, could claim to know. In the words of scripture scholar C. H. Dodd, he can only hope to “tease the mind into active thought.”

This concept echoed throughout Seattle University’s campus Saturday during the school’s Search for Meaning Book Festival. With presentations by more than 40 theological authors from a myriad of religious backgrounds and nearly 3,500 in attendance, the festival brought together people with vastly different worldviews and opposing beliefs, asking them to play nicely.

“Our desire is specifically to get beyond the kind of issues that have put us in the culture wars that we’re now in,” said Mark Markuly, dean of Seattle University’s School of Theology and Ministry.

This was the festival’s fourth year and it has been growing – Saturday tripled last year’s attendance. But this time around it seemed it couldn’t have come at a more appropriate time.

The threat of Sharia law. A Mormon nearing the White House. Federal funds paying for abortions. A redefinition of marriage. Between book signings, the festival addressed all of these, in some fashion.

With presentations ranging from ‘Transforming Talk: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation” to “Islamaphobia and American History” to “Exploring the Gap between Science and Religion” to “God and Alzheimer’s,” the event’s speakers addressed nearly every issue, but rarely did they assume to have every answer.

In stark contrast to recent presidential debates and consistent media punditry, the most common response to inquiry provided relevant information where there was no proven answer, instead of answers that lacked or misused information.

“Science is not equipped to tell truth,” professed Lee Wimberly, who retired from Boeing to write “Exploring the Gap Between Religion and Science.” Science, like a belief system, uses models to explain the unknown. As with a personal spiritual struggle, when new information is presented, there are two options: ignore it or alter the model.

Therein lies the root of many religious conflicts. Rarely is anyone willing to alter their model. In the world of theology, this includes recognizing the context in which sacred texts were written, and being willing to interpret them through a modern lens.

In failing to interpret religious texts with their historical, linguistic and cultural backgrounds, you’re “only going to affirm what you already think is true, which then closes you down to conversion. From the perspective of a theologian, that’s a dead faith,” Markuly said.

“The Bible is the living word because it is renewed every time someone comes to it with a new pair of eyes,” said Father James Martin, a Jesuit Priest and author of “Between Heaven and Mirth.” “When people say that the Bible needs to be taken literally, you have to grapple with texts that don’t agree with one another.” The world’s sacred texts begin the conversation; the onus is on us to engage in it.

An important distinction: engaging in conversation does not equate to attempting to convert. Our political and social discussions must begin with recognition of our common ground, that which allows us to talk to each other civilly and intelligently, rather than regurgitating the vitriol that has polarized our society.

To do this, we must take to heart the paradox principle of reality: that things are both what they are and what they are not; that both the rabbi and the atheist are correct. Because what matters is not who is right, but who does right.

Too many of those spewing hate from behind the lectern, or the podium, or the camera, or the microphone can say neither.