Really? Like this is surprising? It is only surprising to the Evangelical leaders who have been pretending for years that their churches were gaining more people than they were actually losing.

For decades now, Evangelical leaders have gathered annually at church growth conferences where the few mega-churches that were actually growing were showcased, as well as their leaders, like sideshows in a city circus. What they were not telling the younger Evangelical leaders who enviously observed the ministerial stars with an almost desperate aspiration of being just like them one day, is that it was all an illusion. The few mega-churches that were growing experienced their numerical successes from two sources primarily, one source from those who desired a more entertaining worship experience (and, of course, mega-churches could afford the best talent in town); and the other from among the disgruntled or disillusioned members of other churches nearby.

But, this illusion appears to be finally ending for Evangelical leaders. They now appear more willing to be honest about what everyone else has known for a long time: the church is not only declining, so is its influence, along with the influence of its leaders.

But why? There are likely many reasons for the declining influence of the church. What’s certain it is not the cause of liberalism in Christian seminaries or secularism in the American culture, the two most commonly identified causes by Evangelical leaders themselves. Here’s a reason worth contemplating that comes immediately to my mind …

Evangelical leaders and their followers have made the same mistake that Billy Graham once made when he pitched his tent, so to speak, on the White House lawn under the shadow of the infamous Richard Nixon. When Nixon publicly disgraced himself and left office, Graham was so embarrassed by the debacle that he purportedly said something to the effect, “I’ll never get that close to another president.” As far as I know, he never did. The difference between Billy Graham, however, and most other Evangelical leaders is that Graham learned from his mistake.

Evangelical leaders have used the political process, as well as politicians looking for votes, in order to promote their religious and social agenda for as long as I can remember. And, in my own opinion, it is a gross error in judgment, as the history of failed organizations like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition clearly demonstrate.

Many of these leaders mistakenly believe that Jesus’ command that they “go” and “make disciples” of all nations means that they are to convert everyone to Christianity and the western version of Christianity at that! This is not only a misreading of Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:19-20 but a misapplication of their meaning as well.

Here’s how.

Jesus was not commissioning the church with these words. At the time he uttered these words, there was no church to commission. At best, he spoke to a handful of disillusioned friends whom he had every right to feel were his enemies, since they had all deserted him just days before. And, why did they desert him? It is precisely because he turned out to be a big disappointment to them. They wanted a leader who would launch a rebellion against Rome. Instead, he compassionately submitted himself to service and suffering. The way of submission has never been too popular to the church at any time in its history.

What Jesus was instructing this group of deserters to do was to learn from their debacle and then go about teaching and preaching his path to knowing God, living compassionately, and pursuing a Divine and ethical life. It would be decades later, even centuries, before Jesus’ teachings would be institutionalized by a Church that all too quickly became more interested in preserving itself and canonizing its doctrines, dogmas, and demands or, better, controls over people.

I’m not suggesting that, with the birth and development of the institutionalized church, everything about it has been wrong or misguided. It has not. While it is true the Church has done much harm throughout the centuries, it is equally true the church has done much good. Just try to imagine this country without the benevolence and generosity that has motivated countless people and congregations to compassionate activity here and abroad. The church’s concern for the well-being of people, for example, has given birth to many of the hospitals in this country, as well as abroad. Furthermore, virtually every great educational institution in this country owes its gratitude to Christian ministers and Christian people.

Some readers of my blogs mistakenly conclude I’m a disgruntled former churchgoer whose only interest is pointing out the problems within the Christian Church. Well, I do that, of course. But it is because I’m qualified to do so. I love the church and I remain hopeful for comprehensive change within it.

I’m also quick to remember not only the good the church has done but to remind others of it, too. And whenever I do, I intentionally remind the critics of the church, particularly educated ones who received their degrees from the likes of Harvard, Princeton, Yale and other such notable institutions of higher learning, that there’s a good chance none of them would be in existence today were it not for Christian ministers and benevolent Christian people committed to educating the masses.

So it is highly disingenuous for any critic of Christianity to fail to exercise respectful restraint when the inclination wells up inside them to bite the proverbial hand that’s fed them — or, at a minimum, made possible their dining at some of the finest educational tables in the world.

The church has done much good. Only a fool would say otherwise. It seems also clear to me that, throughout history, the church has been at its best, not when it has mistakenly thought Jesus’ mandate was to convert the world to Christianity, but when it has simply gone about, as Jesus did, doing good to and for all people (Matt. 9:35).

The good Jesus went about doing was preaching and teaching that all people are loved by God, welcomed into her family, and deserve the opportunity to live a joyful, peace-filled, and abundant life.

What Evangelical leaders have preached, however, has often been the very opposite: that everyone is wicked and deserving of suffering in an eternal inferno. Furthermore, had it not been for the cosmic Superman named Jesus, they would. He showed up to take the wrath of his psychotic Father whose rage was so out-of-control it had to be vented on something or someone.

What’s good about this? Not a thing. Yet, it is this narrow-minded misreading of scripture and the consequential theology that grows out of this kind of mindset that has contributed to the declining influence of Evangelical leaders and churches. It is also this theology that, when carried to its extreme — and it always does — gives birth to radical fundamentalist thinking, whether Christian or Muslim, as demonstrated in persons like Anders Behring Breivik and Osama bin Laden.

So again, I say, the church is at its best whenever it is behaving like Jesus … when it is caring for the sick and infirm, founding and funding educational institutions, providing clean water and purification technologies, creating more sanitary living conditions for all, teaching people to farm and improve their living conditions, serving meals to hungry and displaced people, speaking out against the political and social structures that dehumanize, demoralize, or discriminate against people, and, ultimately, modeling for all what it means to walk with God and live a compassionate, ethical, and joyful life.

Now, when Evangelical leaders and their congregations decide to return to preaching and teaching Jesus’ real mandate — that of learning, living, and loving — then you’ll see the church and its leaders restored to a place of influence.

I grew up in a very conservative Christian environment. But, if you regularly read my articles, you know I have moved beyond many of those early beliefs, most of which can work as long as you live in a very small, narrow, exclusive, and illusory world.  Which, of course, I did. But, no longer. Given my exposure to other cultures and religious traditions, and at a very young age, I can remember wondering how Christians alone could be right and everyone else wrong. But, I tried for some decades to ignore those inner questions. And, so, I went the way of most Christians. I tried to conform to everyone’s way of thinking and believing, graduated college, went off to seminary, earned a doctorate in theology and pastored for nearly twenty years among Baptist people.  All the while, wondering in my heart, do I really believe all this narrow-minded nonsense I’m expected to preach every Sunday?

You don’t ignore such questions or live an inauthentic life for long. Life will give you whatever you need, or so Eckhart Tolle reminds us, to bring you to a place of awakening.  And, of course, that’s exactly what happened to me. It took the unexpected death of my father and my world crumbled beneath me.  I left the ministry and divorced. And…well…the rest is history, as they say. I wandered and wondered for many years.

Then, one day, I quit struggling, looking, searching and then it happened. I woke up. Might be why I like the Buddha so much. His name means, as you perhaps know, “the awakened one.” In a little way, I think I know what his name means.

Today, I am a devoted follower of Christ.  His way of knowing God is the path I follow. However, I also know that Jesus said, “I have other sheep that are not of this fold…”(John 10:16) meaning, as the Sufi poet said, “There are many gates into the garden; and you need pass through only one.”

So, I prefer to refer to my beliefs today as “perspectives,” as that leaves room for growth and change.  That openness has enabled me to embrace what’s wholesome and good about the diversity one finds even within the Christian community.  In fact, I can say today, “I am Christian, first, as well as a Baptist, a Roman Catholic, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a Presbyterian, an Independent, and so forth.  It also enables me to affirm and embrace the spiritual truth I find in other traditions.  This is what Gandhi meant when he said, “I consider myself a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jew…and, so forth.”

If this resonates with your spirit, permit me to make a few recommendations that might help you continue growing in the same direction.

1. Stay open to everything and attached to nothing.  It’s our attachments, in this case to a particular belief system or way of thinking, that creates much of our mental suffering. You can have firm convictions, provided the platform upon which you build your life is made of wood, not cement.

2. In the Christian tradition, St. Paul said, “Work out your own salvation.”  Most Christians misread his meaning. What he’s not saying is that one’s experience of transcendence is manufactured by you or me. Grace is grace because it’s surprising. It shows up the moment you stop struggling to know God, as I try to make clear in my book, The Enoch Factor.

What Paul does mean is that your spiritual growth, in whatever tradition seems right for you, does depend on the attention you give it.  This is the real meaning of the Law of Attraction. There’s so much nonsense written about this fundamental spiritual law. Most of it from very greedy little egos looking for some magical way to make their dreams come true.  The real meaning is that the universe will work with you–it can’t do otherwise–in helping you advance in self-realization and God-realization but…and this is a big but (pardon the pun),–when you make it your intention to awaken and so give your attention to your spiritual awakening.

3. Then, I would suggest you meditate this day, and a little every day, on the rich diversity of spiritual truth experienced and expressed through countless spiritual traditions–not just your own. Sure, affirm your own perspectives and spiritual convictions. But, ask God, or, if you prefer, the universe, to give you an open heart, an open mind, and open hands to embrace all whose perspectives and experiences might be different.

Just a little wisdom today from the myriad of rich and wonderful spiritual traditions – and this from a former Baptist minister.  How’s that for openness?

The following are a few of my perspectives. I make no claim that they’re absolute, so I have no interest in debating them. Further, I do not write this as a polemic or treatise in order to convince you of anything. Saint Paul said, “Work out your own salvation” (Phil.2:12). What follows is my work and works for me. You’ll have to do your own, if you so elect, as the spiritual path is one journey no one can take for you. In Jackson Browne’s song “For a Dancer,” there’s a stanza, the lyrics of which go like this: “Just do the steps that you’ve been shown, by everyone you’ve ever known; Until the dance becomes your very own … In the end, there is one dance you’ll do alone.”

I’m often asked, “Do you still believe in God?” Yes. But, my perspective is this: I can no more prove God exists than anyone else can prove God doesn’t. When people debate God’s existence I get the feeling it’s little egos in either direction — as believers or disbelievers — needlessly engaging in an exercise in futility. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Those who argue for God’s existence do so because they’re secretly afraid he doesn’t. Those who debate against God’s existence do so because they’re secretly afraid she does. So, in the end, what really is the point? Raised as I was to believe in God, I could no more not believe than I could stop the sun from shining or the earth from spinning on its axis.

I’ve tried, too. I finally concluded, however, I suspect I’m hotwired to believe. Written into my DNA perhaps. Who knows? This much I do know: When I contemplate, and then try to articulate, what happened to me one Sunday afternoon — what I’ve called “the Enoch factor” in the elibook by that name — I’m at a loss to explain what happened in me. For all practical purposes, it changed virtually everything in my life: how I feel about myself, others — and particularly those I would have once labeled enemies — and this world. What Romaine Rolland called “the oceanic feeling” descriptively expresses my experience. So, I think it’s safe to say I’m addicted to God.

I call God, God. But I suspect he has as many names as she does aliases. Even among monotheistic religions — Islam, Judaism and Christianity — there are countless names for God, even more among eastern religions. So the question is: Who’s right? My perspective is, they all are. For me, however, the name “God” works just fine.

Beyond this, however, I hesitate to say much more. In fact, anything more I do say, only diminishes this ineffable reality. How do you name what really cannot be named, as Lao Tzu put it? How could anymore presume to explain what’s really inexplicable? I think one of the biggest problems in much of Christianity today is this unfortunate notion that Christians alone know or understand God. I used to think this, but my perspective today is slightly different. My suspicion is, those who think they know God most likely do not.

“What do you believe about Jesus?” is perhaps the second most common question I’m asked. To me, Jesus was a human being, as much flesh and blood, mind and emotions as I am. What distinguished him is that he lived, as did Buddha before him and Muhammad after him, at the highest level of self-realization, which really means God-realization or you might say Divine consciousness. But bear in mind, even these are just words, limiting and inadequate in conveying a dimension of living that no word, explanation or concept could ever capture.

A self-actualized life is a mystery. It is so precisely because it is so rare. To be fully human, as well as fully divine, which means the self is completely free of its-self, is a lifelong, spiritual endeavor. In my estimation, this is why Jesus said, “Follow me.” He gave us a simple invitation to be sure. But as any serious follower knows, it takes the discipline of a lifelong pursuit to actualize.

Jesus lived so connected to himself — with Mystery itself — it wasn’t long before people regarded him as Divine, as God-Incarnate. In that way, they revered or worshipped him, even if they did not always follow him. I still regard Jesus as Divine. But, I do not in the same way I did before. For example, there was a time when I viewed Jesus, and only Jesus, as capable of being divine, or living free of self-interest or self-obsession, and in oneness and unity with Source itself. Today, however, I feel I have the capacity to live a divine life, too, just like everyone else. A divine life is one lived in oneness with all. What else could it be?

When you live at this level of consciousness, there is no separation between you and another — or between you and God. This is why Jesus said, “The things you have seen me accomplish, greater things you will do” (John 14:12). His own prayer was that the oneness he knew with God would be a reality shared by his followers as well. He prayed, “…that they may be one as we are one” (John 17:11). I love the way Meister Eckhart, the Catholic mystic, described this unity: “The eye through which I see God (or anyone else) is the same eye through which God sees me.” To live in this way could only ever result in a very different world. How could it not?

For years, I thought, because I was taught, that when Saint John said, “…God gave his only begotten Son…” (John 3:16), he meant Jesus was God’s one-and-only son. Text critics of scripture will tell you that this might be the meaning John wished to convey. If they are honest critics, however, they will also tell you it is equally possible Saint John was merely noting the “uniqueness” of Jesus. I think this is what he meant. There is no question that Jesus lived a unique life — it’s how he treated others, how he willingly laid down his life in sacrificial love for others and how he survived death. But that does not necessarily mean he was God’s only son, or daughter, with the capacity to live a selfless, self-giving life. Otherwise, why would Jesus have invited people to follow him?

Somewhere in this conversation, I usually hear a sigh of disgust from my very conservative Christian friends (a sigh that I would have shared in unison a few years ago myself). They will press, “But don’t you believe Jesus is the only way to God?” This is the deal-breaker for many Christians. Even for those who regard themselves as tolerant of other beliefs, even other religions, still regard Jesus as the only way to God. In fact, they will vehemently argue that Jesus himself claimed that he was: “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6).

For most of my adult life, I tried to accept this — that “believing in Jesus” was not only the only way to God, but the only way to go to heaven when you die. Today, however, I have a different perspective. It revolves around the word “believe.” Though this is a somewhat small word, its misuse has caused great misunderstanding among Christians.

What does it mean to believe in Jesus? When Jesus invited people to follow him or to “believe in him,” he was inviting people to trust that what he said, as well as how he lived, would result when emulated in a divine life — one connected as deeply with the Father as he was. The one condition was this: you had to believe in him enough to be willing to follow him. But isn’t it a whole lot easier to believe in Jesus than it is to actually follow him? Indeed! This explains how the church can be full of believers in Jesus, but perhaps only a few real followers of Jesus. And, not surprisingly, Jesus predicted this is the way it would be: “The way is broad that leads to destruction and many will go that way. The way is narrow that leads to life and few there will be that find it” (Matt.7:21). Maybe it’s just me, but a “few” does not sound like “many.”

What you might not realize is that to “believe in Jesus” is to have confidence enough in what he said and taught to make it your own spiritual practice — daily. It is much easier to worship Jesus than it is to walk after him. This too, explains, for example, how the church can be full of people who for all practical purposes ignore the teachings of Jesus such as this one, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). It seems to me that the church is full of people who are far more interested in receiving than in giving. Ask any church treasurer.

But this is only one example. There are many, and in part three of this series, I’ll address several of the sayings attributed to Jesus and how the church almost universally ignores these teachings. Yet, the church claims to follow Jesus. But isn’t there a canyon of difference between “believing in Jesus” and in following him? Doesn’t the former result in dogmas, doctrines and debates about Jesus, as well as division around who he was? Of course, it does. And anyone with even a cursory sense of history will know that the story of the Christian church has been, and continues to be, one of conflict, confusion, even corruption.

The latter, however — “following Jesus” — could only ever result in a selfless, self-giving and transformational life, one lived after the example of Jesus himself, whose divine life positively impacted this world for good.

Since we have no verb in English for the Greek word translated as “faith,” the translators of scripture used the word “believe.” Over time, its use or, more accurately, its misuse has resulted in the misguided notion that believing in Jesus means believing certain beliefs about Jesus. So what we have today are more than 20,000 different Christian groups and denominations, each with a catalogue of “beliefs” about Jesus, the Bible and a host of other religious doctrines and dogmas. Ask any one of these groups and you’ll quickly discover that each believes its beliefs are a little more “right” than the beliefs of 19,999 others. The inevitable consequence of this kind of madness is division, which leads to more division and then more division still.

So when Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of the Father…” (Matt. 7:21), I suspect he was driving home the point that it is infinitely more important how you live than what you believe. Beliefs change no one. Believing in Jesus, however, enough to stake your life on his teachings, on how he thought and the way he lived, well, that willradically change you. And it will change your world.

In Zen Buddhism, there is this statement: “The finger that points to the moon is not the moon.” You can spend your life, if you so choose, clinging to the finger of your beliefs — debating, defending and developing an endless array of doctrines around the identity of Jesus. As for me, it is my desire to reach the moon of my spiritual potential. I wish to think like Jesus might have thought — the Buddha, too, as well as Lao Tzu and other spiritual masters — and to practice the way Jesus treated himself and those around him. In short, I wish to answer his invitation: “Follow Me.”

Isn’t that all he really asks of me and of anyone who wishes to believe in him?

One day, the rabbi took Jacob aside and said, “Jacob, why do you suppose Christians make it a habit to tap the side of the saltshaker while Jews always tap the bottom?”

Certain the rabbi was going to join him in ridicule of Christians, Jacob was more than ready to play along. “No, Rabbi, I do not know. Why do Jews tap the bottom of the saltshaker while Christians tap the side?”

“To get the salt out!” answered the rabbi.

There are many ways to tap the shaker, but the purpose is the same—to dispense salt.

Ask the followers of almost any religion what is the purpose of their religion and they will say the purpose is to guide them to know God. They may use different words or ideas to say this, but it is essentially the same purpose. Even in religions like Buddhism, where there is no belief in a Higher Power per se, they still speak sometimes of the “Universal Mind.” What is that, if it is not the same Reality toward which the words and names that others use point aw well?

Similarly, a spiritual seeker in Christianity is really no different than a spiritual seeker in Islam, Taoism, or Hinduism. All want to know God, the higher self, or to reach what Hindus call Samadhi, or “bliss consciousness,” what Christians may call, “salvation,” or “God-realization.” In other words, everyone wants to be complete, to be happy, and to alleviate human suffering, which the Buddha showed us is mostly self-induced anyway. In other words, we all seek the same thing. We just know it in different ways, based on our cultural, social, ethnic, and religious conditioning.  Since everyone is seeking God-consciousness, sometimes confused with “happiness,” then you can understand that every religion has evolved to help facilitate this purpose.

In Christianity, the purpose is called by as many different names as there are names for God. Sometimes, it’s called “salvation.” At other times “redemption,” “justification,” “conversion,” and, in some repressive cultures wherein missionaries took the Christian story, the promise of “liberation” had great meaning to the indigenous, but oppressed peoples. It became known among Christians as “liberation theology.”

In Buddhism, it is nirvana or freedom from dukkha, or “suffering.” In Hinduism, the purpose is called moksha and the goal is to escape earthly suffering and cyclical existence—and to ultimately arrive at nirvana.  In Islam, a follower is known as a Muslim which, by definition, means “one who submits to God.” Islam is now the second largest religion in the world, just behind Christianity. It’s multiplying much faster, too. If its growth continues at the present rate, and every indication would point in this direction, it will soon become the religion with the largest number of followers in the world.

Many Christians find this thought, if not unbelievable, reprehensible. But, the fact is, Islam will achieve this status and will likely do so in just a matter of years. The political, social, and economic environment worldwide is conducive for Christianity’s decline and Islam’s growth.  You can resist this reality if you choose.  Or, you can wage war with it and so attempt to prevent it from happening.  Some Christians would actually opt for this approach, which partly explains why fundamentalist Christians are among the most ardent supporters of our military presence in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.  While they would argue with this analysis, the fact is, their real desire to see terrorism defeated masks a secret desire to see the Islamic faith, if not defeated, seriously impeded.

To those persons who may not have a specific faith orientation, the shared human quest for self-realization or self-fulfillment is the same, nonetheless. It is expressed, however, with terms like “inner transformation,” “awakening,” “unity consciousness,” and so forth. But, again, the terminology may differ, but the purpose in all of these is to know unity with the Self and so live with a sense of connectedness to the universe or Intelligence itself.

Even those persons who do not believe in God per se still share in the same human longing for wholeness. Just like everyone else, they instinctively seek its fulfillment. It may sound to Christians a bit like doubletalk to hear of a “spiritual atheism,” but there are some devout atheists who’ve had some kind of spiritual awakening themselves. Even Albert Einstein referred to himself as “a deeply religious non-believer.”  Whatever it is that has happened to them, they have found it humanly satisfying and life-transforming. It has rewarded them with a sense of the sacred that gives them peace, joy, gratitude, and contentment in ways many religious people I know have never experienced.

If you’re a religious person, how do you explain this? Well, some would dismiss it as a trick of Satan himself. They would argue that these atheists have been deceived—that they just think they’re happy, satisfied, contented, and at peace.

But, I’m not so sure. The ones I know seem quite content, happy, and at peace. As a matter of fact, some of them think more like Christ, and live more Christ-like, than many of the Christians I know. So, my perspective is this:  the only real delusion here is the denial of this possibility by those who cannot accept it. God’s grace is scandalous to those who haven’t really experienced it.

Since I have always believed in God, it is hard for me to understand what someone might describe as an “atheist spirituality”—a kind of oxymoron.  But, I will not deny that anything is possible. Besides, after reading some of the writings of Andre Comte-Sponville, a contemporary French philosopher and self-professed atheist, there is no denying he has had some kind of transcendent and transformational life experience. He does not call what he has experienced “God,” but it has left him with the satisfying sense of belonging to something much grander than he.  Moreover, it is shaping him into a more ethical and felicitous human being.

So, for all their differences, all religions share the same essential purpose.  It has long been my hope that religious people would learn to “celebrate our similarities and respect our differences.”  It seems today far more imperative that all people share a similar hope, indeed a commitment in this direction.  I firmly believe, in the words of the Dalai Lama, “Until there is peace among the religions, there can be no peace in the world.”

After reading excerpts of his speech, I was left with the feeling that the Pope actually believes religion is being marginalized in society, and that the cause is culture, social and political liberalism.  And, by implication, people.  Regular folk like you and me.

This much I can agree with. The Pope is right that religion is rapidly becoming a marginalized relic in public life and discourse.  Larger and larger numbers of people, according to the recent American Religious Identification Survey, do not take organized religion very seriously anymore.

But, who’s really to blame for this?

My own sense is this: It is not culture, society, or, by implication, people who have marginalized religion.  Religion has successfully marginalized itself.

How so?

While all religions share the same essential purpose, virtually every religion is failing miserably, and none more notable to westerners than Christianity itself.  And, it isn’t so much that Christianity is failing, it is the church itself in its varied complexity.

Today, for example, there are over 20,000 groups or denominations within the larger Christian Church. Each believes its understanding of truth is a little more “right” than the 19,999 others.  It is not that there is anything abnormal about this variety or phenomenon of diversity.  In Hinduism, for example, there is a diversity that would make this seem slight by comparison. And, what would explain this?  The longer a religion is around, the more diverse it seems to become.

Diversity, however, isn’t the cause of “marginalization of religion.”  It is, instead, what accompanies the diversity—an insanity that assumes “We’re right,” “You’re wrong,” “We’re in, you’re out,” “We’re the chosen ones, you’re not.”  It is this madness that divides people.  It is from this madness within most expressions of religion that multitudes are moving.

Religions start out well-meaning. But, it isn’t long before they seem to become obsessed with matters of lesser importance. For example, instead of being a bridge to a unified self or a sense of the divine (which is the principal purpose of virtually all faith traditions), religion too often becomes a barrier; instead of freeing people of their burdens, religion itself is a burden; instead of divine approval and acceptance, religion gets preoccupied with guilt, failure, and the depiction of the deity as displeased despot whose pissed off about virtually everything and everyone.

And as we have seen with the recent Koran burnings that gained media attention on the 9/11 Anniversary – and here I am talking about the radical Christian groups who led the charge – instead of bringing unity to humanity, religion is often the cause of great disunity.  It is madness and it must end or the future of humanity is at stake.

There are many Christians who are just as radical as Islamic radicals. But the way they typically express their displeasure with the world, and the fact that their evangelical efforts at converting the world have failed, is to look and earnestly pray for the end of the world.  They call it the “Rapture,” or the return of Jesus for his elect, which of course means them.  This too is madness and a menacing threat to the future of the human family.  These Christians would love to influence America’s foreign policy so as to speed up what they believe to be the ultimate showdown in the Middle East.  They may be succeeding.

What many of these Christians want is the return of Jesus to secretly zap them from Earth and whisk them off to a peaceful never-never land.  Never mind the fact that Jesus himself said no one could predict the end of the world or his return, whatever that may mean, but that one thing is certain: it would be when people “least expect it.”  Since these Christians are expecting it, even longing for it, it has perhaps not occurred to them that they are most likely responsible for his delay.

I’m pretty sure there are many other explanations for the “marginalization of religion” today.  But, if the Pope, and indeed all religious people, are serious about restoring the place of religion in public life and in people’s personal lives, the way to do so is clear from Jesus’ own words: “He who would save his life will lose it, but he who gives his life will find it.”

In other words, here are three simple suggestions:

1. Give up the notion that there’s only one way to know God. Instead, make room for each peaceful faith expression. The religions are here to stay. They’re all needed, but the insanity that they easily become is not.  Whatever the divine is, he’s big enough to embrace all faith traditions.  She’s only small when someone wants to limit her abundant grace to one group of people, or to one way of believing or thinking.

2. Second, give up the notion of “saving the world,” which means, converting everybody to Christianity, or to Islam, or to whatever religion. It isn’t going to happen.  No religion has ever succeeded in getting everyone within it to agree on all things.  And, this is a good thing because those that do succeed usually end up like the infamous Jonestown.  So, have your missionaries leave their “Have you been Born Again?” tracks at home.  Instead, send them armed with knowledge as to farming, water purification, and the like.  Send them with supplies and equipment, with medicine and medical and financial resources.  In other words, give away your compassion and see what happens.

3. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. Trite, but true. I’m pretty sure that’s about all this world has ever needed.  St. Augustine say, “Love and do what you will,” which is just another way of saying “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Until religious leaders know this however, as well as practice it, I suspect Pope Benedict and others will continue to blame the marginalization of religion on culture, ideas, conflicting movements, and ordinary people like you and me.  And, that will lead nowhere, except to greater marginalization.  What you seek to save, you lose. Or, as the easterners put it, “What you resist persists; what you fight survives.”

Admittedly, there are some dramatic differences.

For the most part, my spiritual life is a whole lot less about beliefs and a whole lot more about faith. There is a canyon of difference between the two.  Like most religious people, I had confused belief for faith for decades. For example, there are many people who believe in Jesus but, in terms of living by the way of Jesus—that is, living by the example and teachings of Jesus—they do not.

Take this one example, although there are really many examples I could give you.  Jesus said, “Love your enemies.”  What that really means is “Have no enemies.”  Yet, many churchgoing people—perhaps even the majority of them—who would vigorously defend the US war in Afghanistan and in Iraq.  There was a time when I could have, too.  Now, however, I find it very difficult to live by Jesus’ teaching and try to justify war, any war, at the same time.  I suspect that’s why most Christians throughout history have looked to St. Augustine and his “Just War Theory” as a way to circumvent the rather clear teaching of Jesus.  For me, now that I regard myself as more Christian than ever before, feel, if I am going to say I’m a follower of Christ, then I must truly follow Christ and his teachings, instead of looking for some clever way to explain away his hard teachings.

For most of my adult life, I thought that being a Christian was about believing certain things about God, Jesus, and the Bible.  That being a Christian was about living a certain way – which usually meant ordering your life around some arbitrary but cultural standards somebody concocted as a definition as to what it meant to be Christian.  For Baptists in the south, where I grew up and with whom I attended church, being a Christian meant you walked a church aisle – hopefully soon after reaching the “age of accountability”—whatever that is, said you believed in Jesus and renounced your terrible sins (which were many at the age of seven when this “salvation” event occurred for me), and then promising you wouldn’t “drink, cuss, smoke, or chew or run with girls who do.”

There were a few other things that defined the “right” or “good” Christian—attend church regularly – the really, really good Christians came on Sunday night, too, and again on Wednesday—be patriotic, salute the flag and don’t cheat Uncle Sam, and, of course, pay your tithes and offerings.  If you did not do that…well…you might not go to hell but you’d smell like you’d been there.

Now, however, I know, as Deepak Chopra once put it, your “beliefs are a cover-up for insecurity. You only ever believe in the things you’re not certain about.”

Faith, on the other hand, is the capacity to live in ambiguity; or, to step confidently in the face of uncertainty.  It is to live with an inner sense of security, knowing that, since nothing could ever surprise the Divine, you can live without fear, without stress, worry, or anxiety.  You can live without religion, too.  That being a person of faith has very little to do with what you believe and a whole lot to do with how you live.  To be a person of faith is to not just to believe in God or Jesus, or even to know a lot about God.  It is, instead, to actually know God for yourself, as yourself, and to walk in the joy of her ineffable Presence.

As an educated scholar, theologian, and religious leader, I knew much about God. I could argue and debate with anybody about what I believed. But, in terms of those beliefs making any real difference in my life…well…I cannot say that those beliefs made any difference.  You can’t argue God’s presence into your life.  Clinging to a set of beliefs, no matter how correct they may be, won’t change the human heart.  Jesus said as much to the religious leaders of his day who, like many today, believed that they had to believe the right beliefs to be right with God.  It was insanity then and it is insane today. You only argue and debate about the things you do not know.  When you really know God, what is there to debate?  Or, to put it another way, when people set out to prove that God exists, it could only ever mean that they do so because they secretly fear she doesn’t.

You don’t believe in the sun, do you?  You don’t argue and debate whether it really exists.  The notion would be absurd.  What’s there to believe in or to debate about the sun?  You know the sun. You see it hanging in the heavens, feel its warmth by day, and observe its effects on earth.  Similarly, when you know the reality of the Eternal Presence—and that inner knowing could only ever occur when you exchange beliefs about God for faith in God—then you cannot but see God everywhere, in everyone, as well as in everything.  All of life becomes to you the sacred sanctuary of God’s eternal presence.