Not my original reason for this blog.....

Well folks, while i haven't started my blog about God Debris yet

here is a tide over

Reverend Donald Jackson and Unity Church

Of all the people you told us would be coming to speak to our class no person did I anticipate and dread more then Rev. Don’s attendance. I was a friend to his grandson way back when I was in attendance at Unity Church. But neither I, Nor my mother were really happy with the direction he took Unity Church in when he took over. I looked at the horns of this dilemma and wondered if my positive bias of social familiarity or the vague memories of my own personal dislike of his choice for his ministry would affect me. While I was relived in a sense that I was given plenty of reason to be critical of Reverend Don’s presentation I am still left with a deep and uncomfortable social feeling about what I must write and say to be honest to this assignment. My notes from this assignment were not structured in a formalized outline or chronological structure. I felt that I would walking into this paper be able to adequately speak about his beliefs in a matter connecting to the ideas. The problem I soon found myself faced with was that the ideas were not the problem, in so much as how they were presented.

The presentation was characterized by three types of problems. Statements that were made in direct contradiction to, or lacking real facts to speak of. Some of these statements were made more troubling in how they conflicted with the principles of Unity. The statements that while holding some degree of accuracy were missing other important data or otherwise logically flawed. And the final category was the statements of personal bias, which seemed to pepper his entire presentation, as a way almost to spice it up for the audience. This pattern of statements took away from the precepts of unity that were vague and generally agreeable. But with a Minister from unity providing details we saw how the ultimate inclusive ideology ends up breaking down under its own weight.

The worst of the comments made on a lack of information is that “Muslim’s can’t have democracy.” Despite his justification this assertion falls apart when one examines the role of elections in the governance of Sunni and Shiia mosques. This also fails to meet reality that prior to the cold war period their were several democratically elected governments that existed in the Middle East for a short time. This also seems to conflict with the second principle of Unity the Universal divine spark in all men. Issues are raised again by his treatment of the other Abraham religion. The first major misstatement about the Jews came at the very beginning of his presentation. While the case can be made for religions being “emotionally based” this thesis falls flat on its face when presented against Judaism. The concept of both national revelation, and belief based on knowledge of g-d’s words challenge that. Indeed going back as far as at least Maimoides the concept of debating was a firm belief in the Jewish tradition. A belief which is debated by Jews of all stripes even to this day. In rhetoric a single example is necessary to dismiss such a wide sweeping statement but the rituals of the Amish and other Anabaptists ad support to my rebuttal. When I made this rebuttal he made a response which also was not based on an accurate state of knowledge. The Chassidic Jews are not Ultra orthodox believers ( a label they would never use) the Chassidic communities are formed along a similar principle to the Amish, withdrawal from the corrupt outer society. While some Chassidic Jews are certainly Ultra Orthodox not all are, nor are all Ultra Orthodox Jews Chassidic. His presentation of the concept of the “Christ self” as universal to all classic religions, or to all religions a point he failed to make clear falls under the same hammer as his claim to all religion being emotionally driven. In Judaism the concept of the “sacred self” is not held at an individual level for the Jews, but collectively as part of their covenant with G-D. This is a concept of the National Soul, not a soul that has a individualistic bond with god. In Islam with the exception of its mystical sects you would find no one who would agree with this universal belief, not with Zoroastrianism. These sweeping statements all conflict with his claim to no universal owner property of religious belief as he dictates to religions beliefs they do not hold. His joined presentation of Principle I, II, and III to present the classic example of why bad things happen to good people he used the term Karma inaccurately, Karma is the weight of past events dharma is the manifestations of Karma in your life in the Hindu tradition of reincarnation. He also spoke of the theology of reincarnation of being callous towards the suffering of the human now. He however ignored anything but the Hindu theology on reincarnation.

But, statements made lacking a factual basis in any information were not the only problems presented. Some issues were either leading based on a bias or logically inconsistent with other positions. The Immaculate Conception was the major doctrine I challenged him on in the later half of the presentation. While his statement was true it was only made a mandatory dogma in the 19^th century, a deeper analysis of the issue shows that his statement was very misleading. Church fathers as early as the 1^st century were known to have written about this doctrine, it was widely practiced in England in the 9^th century as well. This doctrine was a matter of contention and debate until it was established as a church doctrine, but not a mandatory dogma, in the 15^th century. His ascertain that it was in reaction to biology however fails in the medieval or classical standards of the times. Jews established Jewish nature, which transcended tribal nature, based upon the matrilineal bloodline. So classically they knew the blood of the mother is in the child. In the middle ages and even until the development of the science of biology formal church marriages were uncommon, so lineage was again traced through matrilineal lines. To the people alive then the concept of the mother not providing blood to the child would be far more alien then it is today. This also goes against his belief in no one holding exclusivity to religious truth, and suggests a bias against the doctrine of original sin. This Principle of Universal truth and the denial of religious exclusive truth is a flawed logical statement. If all religions have an equal claim to truth, then those who believe in religious exclusion must have an equal claim to truth as those who believe in Inclusion. Throughout his presentation however Reverend Don shows he clearly believes some religions are indeed wrong. Further he believes president bush’s call to the universal liberty of man is foolish. So, the belief all men can have a free society is wrong, but the belief that whatever a man believes religiously is right is correct. This I find a fatal logical error in his beliefs. Another logical problem I had with his beliefs was expressed in two statements he made, one for fun and the other as a theological justification. Evil is Live backwards. While I believe in two life affirming and life denying sets of moral values in this world, using this as a justification is rebuked by his second statement. God is dog backwards. If that second statement is valid then god is not loyal, not a friend, and not obedient. Indeed for god to be dog backwards then he would have to be the adversary of mankind. He presents the role of “the accuser” who he wrongly applies the name Satan to in the book of Job as a proof text. But he ignores the role of the accuser as a Prosecutor and police officer going out and tempting men to betray god. He quoted only one verse to justify his position, something he attacks religious fundamentalists for doing, and ignored the rest of the book. He also confronts the unity doctrine of prayer as well in a logically inconsistent manner. He states in like with the 4^th principle of Unity that Prayer only affects your conciseness. He later states that prayer can make a plant grow, and that prayer can heal the environment. He presents a case of a prayer that can have an external impact, but as a matter of the principles of his church states prayer only has an internal impact.

I know some of the story of Reverend Don’s past and while I cannot rightly judge him for the way he feels about his past, it presents a clear and unadulterated bias on his thinking as a religious leader. He talked intensely of the negative physical feeling he gets when he hears the simple phrase from his family “I’m praying for you.” This coming from a man who preached earlier in his lecture the doctrine of inclusion, and presented that prayer could not work if it was manipulative in nature shows himself violating the 5^th principle of unity; do or do not, there is no try. His family and the community he came from did very awful things to him when he left their fold and moved his own way, but his view of their prayer for him is much as the view of a man who is hid away waiting for his death to come for him. Its an angry and almost bitter tone. If he wished to do what Christ taught, he would turn the other cheek… he would accept that they mean him well when they say that. But, his actions show he thinks poorly of them. Just as he rejects inclusion for those who were as he was, fundamentalist, and just as he spoke of a catholic doctrine and tried to paint it as an anti-intellectual reaction when it clearly was not he extends a visceral hated of the “bubba” fundamentalist, and it is played out in one person specifically. George Bush does not fit the stereotypical bubba; he was not born in the south, he was educated in the heart of elitist New England privilege. George Bush likewise does not fit the traditional role of the fundamentalist; He was born an Episcopalian, but ended up a Methodist. He rarely has attended church in his public life going back to his being the senior partner on a major league baseball team to his very presidency. George has not made any absolutist statement on sin, abortion, gay rights, or any other issue of the fundamentalist bubba. Yet this man has become the lightning rod for all the bubba’s out there in Reverend Don’s eyes. Reverend Don made a comment about the apostle Paul being a latent homosexual, and how attacking homosexuals speaks about your own inner turmoil on the issue. While science has refuted that homophobia is a fear or a sign of latent homosexuality, this logic shows merit on Reverend Don’s views on biblical fundamentalists in general, and George Bush in particular. Reverend Don presents the Liberal Christian political tradition quite well, yet he attacks George Bush for his role as a figure in Conservative populist religious political tradition. Both of these political traditions have been with the United States since its founding, but it is clear by saying one is right and one is wrong Reverend Don is behaving in just the way he attributes to George Bush. He speaks of the potential of a theocracy in this country as just as great of an evil as the Middle Eastern “theocracies” which are not theocracies in a real sense. He compares an abortion bomber acting on a extreme religious calling, to have moral equivalence to a suicide bomber acting with the blessing and encouragement of his mufti’s. This moral relativism is compared to the false charge of bush launching a “war” against Islam. He attributes to his opponents words he never said, and makes any problematic ethical positions go away with moral relativism.

At this point, I am reminded of how this whole lecture went wrong for me. When I challenged Don on the issue of religion being emotionally driven. He demanded my respect when I tried to present my case to him with a passion I hold to presentation of knowledge to an audience that should be receptive. I look at this call to respect, then view his leaving his cell phone on for the entire class, along with his use of bias and half thinking to present his lecture to the class. I am reminded of the way I have always felt talked down to in a formal fundamentalist church when I sat down. And I presented my knowledge as I felt appropriate and was largely accepted politely, patted on the head, and hoped to go away so I don’t present troublesome thoughts. It was this attitude that kept me from pressing him on these and many of the other issues his lecture presented to me. I felt he was not willing to listen, or respect my studies. A view he reassured me of when I challenged him on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

But just as this was hard for me to write without first opening with a confession, I feel I must add a note on my experience with Reverend Don as a religious leader in Unity Church. His predecessor Reverend Thom seemed to teach more in line with the Principles of Unity. He stressed the Christian bible, but he stressed it using skills in linguistics and history to give a much fuller interpretation. His sermons were open, and did not speak on anything but inclusivistic topics. Reverend Don was a New Ager in his presentation, and his wife Dorothy Ann was a large part of that. You would think that New Age thinkers would have encouraged the prior tradition of sunday school classes. Instead they striped the sunday school classes of learning and instead became dedicated to crafts and giving each other “love zaps”. Teachers were driven out by a few flower children who were the instigators of this new teaching. The flower children and I did not get along at all, and I was in trouble constantly for rebelling against their authority. Students first drifted out of the sunday school and to my mothers sunday day care class. We drifted in to the church service then drifted out. Where the sermons of Reverend Thom were inclusive and educational, like a teacher talking to a student, the presentation of Reverend Don was very much like an old Baptist preacher, going from revival tent to revival tent. His ministry pushed many former Unity people into the shrine of the master church. But to me it was my last point of being a Christian as I was old enough too finally go elsewhere. While I attended Christian churches I never was a Christian. I never believed what was taught I went there much as one goes to a school, because you’re told you have to.

Reverend Don is a good man, my words may suggest I think otherwise. But to me it is clear he weaves words and scripture to make a case as artfully as those he claims so stridently to be against. My first attempt at this paper was a whopping 11 pages and 5000 words before I saw a need to rewrite it. I did not address all the problems I had with what he said, there were many more, I however needed to address that while he came to us to talk about uUnity, he taught us a great deal about himself.