Part Two: Moving from Toxic Beliefs to Transforming Ones

In this series on beliefs, let’s take our cue from this image of Jesus. Not only should we not try to beat up someone with the Bible, but we should also not do that with our progressive, integral beliefs about the Bible!

I am writing here for our ICN audience, not those with more conventional Christian beliefs. In talking with a more traditional person, I would not use the word “toxic” with them to describe their beliefs. Instead, I would aim for the health of every stage and affirm their beliefs as meaningful to them, and only share mine if asked. Being gracious with those with whom we disagree is the integral approach.

We can’t use reason to argue someone out of beliefs they did not arrive at by reason. Our worldview only allows us to see what it makes available. A larger, more inclusive, loving vision waits on a new worldview. In the meantime, we work for the caring health of every stage!

Soothing the troubled waters of religious beliefs

We are exploring the often contentious realm of Christian doctrines and beliefs. While we have understandings central to ICN, we have no official statement of beliefs, and no particular ones are required to be a part of this community. I remind us again that the participants in ICN cover a wide range of beliefs and nonbeliefs about Christianity.

At ICN, we lead with spiritual practice and experience rather than a system of beliefs. However, we often offer certain beliefs or “frameworks of understanding” that may help with entering into mystical experience and practice while occupying a possibly more loving, complex, and inclusive stage of spiritual growth.

In this article, I share my bases for determining the truth of any spiritual belief. First, I look at it from the life and teaching of Jesus. I deem him the ultimate example of human-divine wholeness, far in advance of his time and ours. Next, because of my academic training and life-long research, I look at its theological implications, its history, and what other scholars and mystics say about it. And finally, I ask, “What has this belief produced in the lives of those who hold it?” Let’s explore this last one.

William James held that the best beliefs are useful

William James (1842–1910) was a medical doctor turned influential philosopher who established psychology as legitimate science in the United States. James believed that whether we decide something is true or not should be based on solid empirical evidence. He thought that truth is a tool by which we do things. According to his criterion of truth, true ideas have practical value, and false ideas do not. To use James’ bold analogy, “truth has a practical cash value.” If we know the truth, we can cash it in or make use of it.

For instance, I believe that the Three Faces of God is an extremely helpful truth, among other reasons, because it is incredibly useful to me in opening up the transforming experiences of God Beyond Me, God Beside Me, and God Being Me. I “cash in on it” to evolve from the limiting traditional Trinity to an Integral Trinity that serves both my understanding and provides actual avenues to experience a God that is big enough, close enough, and me enough.

Jorge Ferrer’s brilliant test of the validity of all spiritual paths

Ferrer is a former professor of psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco. His writings are informed by Richard Tarnas, Raimon Panikkar, William James, Nagarjuna Buddhism, Ken Wilber, and many others, including contemplative and Indigenous traditions. His book, Participation and the Mystery, is one of my favorites. I recommend it if you can take his academic writing.

Rather than discerning a spiritual path by its beliefs, he proposes we determine its truthfulness by the path’s ability to produce selflessness, personal integration, and the ethical stance of eco-social-justice-freedom-equality-human rights.

The egocentrism test of selflessness assesses the extent to which spiritual traditions, teachings, and practices free practitioners from gross and subtle forms of narcissism and self-centeredness.

The personal integration test evaluates the extent to which the belief fosters the integrated blossoming of all dimensions of the person.

Ferrer points out that this includes the integration of our romantic hearts (intuition, feeling, imagination), enlightened minds (reason and critical inquiry), sensuous bodies (somatic and erotic knowing), and contemplative consciousness (mystical knowing). He says this also includes ethical behavior, grounding in body and earth, honesty, creativity, courage, balance, and resilience.

The eco-socio-political test assesses the extent to which spiritual systems foster ecological balance, social and economic justice, religious and political freedom, class and gender equality, and other fundamental human rights.

These three tests may sound complicated and overwhelming. However, the integral path is not a simple or easy journey. These are all dimensions to be aware of as one is able.

How do you tell if beliefs are true or not?
The truth of a belief can be discovered best, not by complex philosophical and theological thought or reigning authorities, but by the kind of lives this belief produces.

Jesus said the same thing in a more graphic way

Jesus said exactly this with, “You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. By their fruits, you shall know them.” (Matt 17: 16-18).

If you want to see if a belief is transforming or toxic, see what kind of person or behavior it produces. Does it make a person or group more selfless, integrated, and socially responsible? Apply this to the world’s religions, Christian denominations, spiritual movements, ICN, and yourself.

A Central Theme of Jesus — Social Responsibility

Jesus’ parables were not about God. They were about parties, farmers’ planting, business dealings, and especially the rich and the poor. They pointed to how we operate in this world, not some other one.

In Luke 16, Jesus tells the parable about a rich man who ignored the poor, as represented by the man Lazarus. They both died, and Lazarus went to be with Abraham while the rich man went to Hades. In Hades, the rich man was being tormented, “He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in these flames.’”

Was the point to describe life after death? Absolutely not! That would be conveniently sidestepping the story’s uncomfortable point. It was not about believing in Jesus to escape hell. It was about how we treat the poor and oppressed. It was about the seriousness of Jesus’ central theme of caring for the impoverished and exploited.

In Ferrer’s terminology, it was one of the three tests of a religion and its beliefs, the ethical stance of social-justice-freedom-equality-human rights described above.

Some beliefs not only keep us from loving everyone but foster abuse and violence.

Beliefs such as Original Sin, the Chosen People, Hell, the Wrath of God, and the Final Judgment dehumanize others and are the toxic seedbed for emotional abuse for those who hold these beliefs. They foster violence against those who do not agree with such doctrines. If God can be righteously abusive and violent, then so can we.

The Vengeance of God?

I take the Bible seriously in the way Jesus took his bible seriously. His bible would have been what we call the Old Testament today. Jesus used this interpretative key: He embraced some parts of his bible, ignored some parts, and rejected some parts. We should do the same with ours.

When Jesus was in his hometown of Nazareth, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath and stood to read from Isaiah 61. After reading the Torah, Jesus gave a talk that made Naaman the Syrian (Syrians were enemies of the Jews) the hero. The congregation became angry, drove him out, and tried to throw him off a cliff.

Here is the passage from Isaiah 61 that he applied to himself. He read the first section, except for the last line,

The spirit of the Lord God is upon me
because the Lord has anointed me;
he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed,
to bind up the brokenhearted,
to set the captives free
and release to the prisoners,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God.
Isaiah 61:1-2

Notice that he described his mission as a ministry to the oppressed, not a system of beliefs. And our point here is that, significantly, Jesus eliminated the last line: “and the day of vengeance of our God.” He didn’t try to “work it in” with the love of God, nor did he even try to reconcile it with the idea of the good news for all who needed good news, regardless of their race or beliefs. He just eliminated it!

Why? Because he did not believe in the vengeance of God!

Love your neighbor, hate your enemy?

One time Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:43-44).

Where did they hear “hate your enemy”? Jesuit priest and theologian, Raymond Schwager, points out, “The Hebrew Bible contains 1,000 verses where God’s own violent actions of punishment are described, 100 passages where Yahweh expressly commands others to kill people, and several stories where God kills or tries to kill for no apparent reason. Violence is easily the most often mentioned activity and central theme of the Hebrew Bible.”

In one sentence, Jesus wiped out all of that hate and killing!

If we find vengeance in any form in our Bible, including both the Old and New Testaments, we should wipe it out as Jesus did!

This also applies to all the anti-women, anti-science, pro-violence, pro-slavery, and other crazy-sounding parts of the Bible.

Awkward Moments in a Children’s Bible

John 3:16

Taking my cue from Jesus, here is how I read that famous sentence found in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that God gave their only Son so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

When your heart is kinder than your doctrine, your doctrine has a problem!

Making Christians superior to others by thinking we are the only ones with the truth

Jesus also wiped out the ego-driven sense of superiority that inevitably arises when there is an in-group (the saints) and an out-group (the sinners). Conventional Christianity considers itself the “in” group, and everyone else is on the outside. Jesus faced that with his religion, too. He subverted that system at every turn.

Here’s a great list made by someone wanting to be more like Jesus.

In the past, I had difficulty finding sinners to hang out with as a Baptist pastor since all my friends were Baptists who generally tried not to be sinners. However, when I found out I was gay at age 60, I got to hang out with lots of gay sinners! I met my wonderful partner of 20 years, Ivan, in a gay bar filled with real sinners!

Also, the last one, napping on a sailboat, would be difficult now. I sold my sailboat when I was 45 after I got caught by myself in a storm off the Gulf of Mexico. So it goes. Being like Jesus has its challenges.

Jesus, the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15)” and “the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Heb. 1:3), presented a radically different picture of God from the conventional one. For Jesus, God was not a stern lawgiver, vengeful judge, or violent executioner. God is a compassionate lover who will bring all into the fulness of that love.

God’s plan, in the fullness of time, is to gather up everyone in love (Eph 1:9-10)

I felt liberated when I started believing that God will not cease until all humanity has found the light, both religious and non-religious. Clearly, this is not going to happen in this life for many, so It is just a matter of time and beyond time for all to find spiritual enlightenment.

People who believe God will punish most of humanity in hell tend not to have a positive or friendly view of the “unchosen.” This invites feelings of superiority which doesn’t foster a sense of equality and other loving, relational values. That was a very conflicting belief for me until I discarded it in my early twenties. I was then in a seminary that taught the opposite. Guess that makes me a rebel. Ah, another thing that may make me a little more like Jesus.

For Reflection . . .

1. How does discerning the truthfulness of all spiritual paths by their ability to produce selflessness, personal integration, and the ethical stance of eco-social-justice-freedom-equality-human rights feel to you?

2. What do you think of Jesus’ interpretative key of embracing some parts of the Bible, ignoring some parts, and rejecting some parts?

3. How do you understand the “wrath of God” and the long-established belief of some that those who are not Christians will be separated from God?

How to Tell if a Religious Belief is True or Toxic