Indefinite Hiatus - Pursuing my Oxford Dreams

Hello everyone! Thanks for stopping by.

With all the energy I've been putting towards my education, this hasn't been updated nearly as much as I originally intended.

However, this also resulted in my recently being offered a place at the University of Oxford!


Unfortunately, I can't afford the price tag, and if I can't raise the funds necessary by the end of July, my offer will be withdrawn. With that in mind, I'm diverting all spare energy and resources to raising funds, and this blog in particular is going on an indefinite hiatus.

To learn more about my campaign, educational journey, and how you can support me, please visit www.OxfordDreams.com

As I write this, it's still in development, but it will eventually have its own blog posts as well.

So please, visit the site, support me if you can, and stay tuned for future information.

With my love and blessings,
Garrett McLain

Divine Order

I touched on this previously here, but I'd like to take a moment to expound on the idea of Divine Order.

Unity is a non-dogmatic spiritual/religious organization. What this means is that Unity doesn’t teach a lot of “absolute truths” regarding God and the Universe, instead primarily focusing on spiritual principles and prayer practices and leaving the specifics of theological exploration to each individual Unity Student.

What this also means is that there are a lot of phrases and terms that are used, but left largely unexplained.

Case in point: Divine Order

COMMON USAGE

When people say, “it’s all in Divine Order,” they’re most often using it in the same exact sense as “it’s all part of God’s plan.” The idea is that God is actively manipulating events in our lives and that every tragedy is really a blessing in disguise.

THE PROBLEM

The problem with this idea is two-fold. Firstly, it doesn’t align with basic Unity teachings. While Unity doesn’t have a strict doctrine to which members must be aligned, there are certain basic beliefs that are fundamental to Unity’s teachings.

These are known as the Five Basic Principles*:

1. There is only one Presence and one Power active as the universe and as my life, God the Good.
2. Our essence is of God; therefore, we are inherently good. This God essence, called the Christ, was fully expressed in Jesus.
3. We are co-creators with God, creating reality through thoughts held in mind.
4. Through prayer and meditation, we align our heart-mind with God. Denials and affirmations are tools we use.
5. Through thoughts, words and actions, we live the Truth we know.

These foundational ideas make Unity a belief system of empowerment. We are not powerless beings, floating about in the world being affected by the will and whim of some separate deity. We are not marionettes, being tugged and manipulated by God. Rather, we are co-creators with God, with the ability to affect our world through both actions and prayer.

Why, then, fall back on the belief that everything that occurs is part of some other plan?

The second issue is in the idea’s actual utility and impact. The concept that a benevolent God is behind all hardship is only comforting in regards to the minor tragedies of our lives. When struggling with the sudden loss of a job, a divorce, or an unexpected delay towards some goal, the idea that it’s all part of some greater, better plan is calming and comforting.

But in the face of greater tragedies, it’s difficult to see how such things could be considered good. When struggling with the loss of a loved one or the diagnosis of some debilitating illness, “God’s plan” seems a bit faulty. This is even more infuriating when looking at other tragic conditions in the world: famine and extreme poverty, child molestation and rape, massively deadly natural disasters. How could these things possibly be “in Divine Order”?

A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

I believe in Divine Order.

However, I believe that Divine Order is simply a recognition of one part of the first basic principle – the idea that goodness is the only thing with any real power or presence in the world.

Bad things do happen. And while some of the minor tragedies can lead to greater blessings, most of the great tragedies are just that: tragic. The important thing to remember, though, is that no matter how terrible something may be, goodness always remains. “Evil” has no real power or presence in the world.

The goodness that remains in every situation, from the tragedy of a lost job to the devastation of a tsunami, is ever-present, waiting for us to recognize it and bring it to the forefront of being. It can be realized in the pursuit of a long-lost passion, newly awakened; in the gathering and comforting of friends and family; in the international effort to provide aid to a region in need. This goodness doesn’t always outweigh the bad – but it doesn’t have to. All it needs to do is persist.

This is what Divine Order truly is. The recognition that God, the good, is all there really is. No matter what happens, we can always turn to that goodness, remember the God in all, and move forward in the manifestation of greater and better world.

No tragedy or wrongdoing can ever take that away from us.

*There is no official wording for the 5 Basic Principles. The principles as written in this post are from http://unity.org/association/aboutUs/whatWeBelieve/unityPrinciples.html

Coming back soon...

Hey, so this whole thing was inadvertently put on hiatus a while back, but I'm just writing to say that it will be coming back soon.

I'm also hoping to start posting "video synopses" of the various blog posts, provided I can get my camera to start working properly.

First up is to finish answering the questions previously posed, including the value and impact of Christianity and faith traditions in general. If you have anything you would like me to address, either a general topic or a particular question, you can let me know by either commenting here or asking at formspring.me/iamgarrett.

Take care and see you soon!

Homosexuality

"Do you think being gay is a sin? Is it a choice?"

Let’s start with the second question first.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION VS. SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

Sexual orientation is by definition NOT a choice. While scientists have not yet pinpointed the physiological cause of one’s sexual orientation, it is clear that one’s orientation is neither a product of choice nor environment. Support of this exists scientifically in the form of double-blind pheromone experiments, the lack of uniting social or other environmental factors during childhood amongst homosexuals, and the prevalence of homosexuality and bisexuality throughout time, country, and culture, as well as in cases of homosexual behavior among animals – including species which are biologically monogamous. It also exists in the common reflection of one’s own sexuality and the difficulty with which most people could imagine a long term romantic and sexual relationship with a member of the non-desired sex, and in the painful reflection of those individuals who have taken their own lives due largely to the rejection by others because of their sexuality – if sexual orientation was a choice, then surely those individuals would choose to be straight rather than choose to commit suicide.

That being said, however, sexual behavior IS a choice. While we may not be able to decide to whom we are attracted, we can make decisions about our behavior. Homosexuals have as many options regarding sexual behavior as heterosexuals, varying from abstinence, to monogamy, to promiscuity (and it would be just as incorrect to assume all homosexuals are promiscuous as it would be to assume that all heterosexuals are monogamous). Additionally, the fact that homosexual orientation is not a choice does not inherently make it morally acceptable; there is a large amount of evidence suggesting that pedophiles do not choose to be sexually attracted to children, yet we can all agree that pedophilic behavior is definitively immoral.

So then, in examining the morality of homosexuality, while recognizing that it is not a choice we must examine the behavior itself.

THE MORALITY OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR

To keep things simplified, we will focus solely on homosexual behavior which in all ways other than the gender of one’s partner reflects the most commonly respected heterosexual behavior: that of a long-term monogamous partnership.

In examining this, we will refer to the previously established purpose of morality and ask whether a monogamous homosexual relationship would violate or uphold the immediate and long-term survival and thriving of humankind. Recognizing that what is most moral can change due to time and place, and we will examine this relationship as occurring modern day and in a developed first world country.

First is the question of its impact on the immediate and long-term survival of mankind. A monogamous homosexual relationship would not pose any inherent threat to the health or well-being of either partner, nor any neighbors or other members of their community. In regards to the long-term survival of mankind, the biological inability to produce offspring is a legitimate concern; however, with modern technology it is possible for the couple to have children of their own with the assistance of a sperm donor or an egg donor and surrogate mother. Additionally, in every first world country there are today a very large number of orphans, children without any home or family, who by being adopted can be afforded a better chance of current and future health and well-being. In this way, then, a homosexual relationship would not threaten the survival of mankind, and could indeed support it.

Secondly, we must examine the impact on the thriving of mankind. There is no logical reason that I can fathom to believe that a homosexual relationship would impede upon the autonomy, freedoms, or moral lifestyle of either themselves or others; nor in any other way impede the thriving of mankind. Indeed, the fact of the other partner’s gender seems to have no bearing on that couples’ impact on their community, with the major factors of social and neighborhood interaction existing independently of sexual orientation. As to the thriving of future generations, opponents of same-sex couples adopting have argued that it would be very detrimental to a child of any gender to be raised without role models of both the male and female gender. In this regard, I fully agree that raising children without such role models would be detrimental to the thriving of mankind; however, there is absolutely no reason to think that a same-sex couple would or even could raise a child without a variety of role models of both genders. Large sample studies and individual case studies of children raised in both same-sex and single parent homes have found those children to be just as well adjusted as a child raised in a male-female parental home. Every child raised for properly will be exposed not just to their parents as role models, but also family members such as grandparents, aunts and uncles; teachers; coaches; neighbors; church leaders; scout leaders; club leaders, etc. And so there is no reason to believe that a modern-day monogamous homosexual relationship would pose a threat to the immediate or long-term survival or thriving of humankind.

For this reason, I strongly believe that homosexuality is in no way inherently immoral.

(aka: not a sin.)

DEFENSE OF ANCIENT IMMORALITY

The challenge for many in accepting this view, however, lies in the prevalence of the view of homosexuality as deeply immoral. This is not simply a view of many modern day Christians, but spans across several major religions with admonitions against homosexuality in a variety of holy texts, and is also seen in the secular beliefs of many cultures for centuries. The existence of a few religious faiths and cultures, both ancient and modern, which embrace homosexuality or even revered it, carries as little weight to those who view homosexuality as inherently immoral as the existence of cultures which view cannibalism as moral. Many proponents of equal rights for sexual minorities are quick to point out that most scriptural references used in opposition to homosexuality refer not to monogamous loving homosexual relationships but to general sexual depravity and promiscuity, or that those passages appear within sections of law pertaining to diet, clothing, and other forbidden practices no longer adhered to. This is largely true, but does not discount the fact that no ancient Rabbi would marry two men or two women, and that none of the writers of any of the ancient holy texts which condemn any form of homosexuality likely believed that a monogamous homosexual relationship was moral.

And so we must apply our standard of morality within the time and environment of those writings. It can be easy to forget just how old our holy texts are, and just how different the world was in those days.  Since 0 AD, the world’s population has increased by approximately 3,295%. To return to the population of the world at the approximate time of Jesus Christ’s life, we would have to have over 100 more WWII’s. At that time, entire communities were dependent upon families producing as many children as they possibly could: if a community failed to bring forth enough new members, it didn’t just hurt that community’s productivity but could result in the death of entire family lines and even the community itself. Infertile couples were often viewed as cursed, and every healthy child born from a mother who survived the birth was a welcome blessing. It is easy, then, to see just how immoral it would be for someone of a homosexual orientation in one of these communities to choose to engage in homosexual behavior – even if in a loving and monogamous relationship. To do so with no means to bare new life for the community would threaten both the immediate and long-term survival and thriving of that sample of mankind, and would be a brazen act of selfishness and disregard for others.

With today’s modern medicine and growing overpopulation issue, the morality of heterosexual relationships has most certainly changed – not just within the secular community but within most religious communities as well. Many churches no longer ban the use of contraceptives, and even those that still do no longer preach the birthing of as many children as possible with the same sense of moral urgency as the days of old. For a woman to delay childbirth to pursue a career, or pursue one while raising a child, would have been strongly condemned by most church leaders even just a hundred years ago. Even the cause for marriage has shifted; while most people today would consider arranged  marriage borderline if not absolutely immoral, with matrimony formed through true love viewed as the most admirable and moral, it wasn’t that long ago in which just the opposite was the case.

Does it not make sense then that the morality of homosexual unions has shifted as well? Morality does not change based upon the whims and desires of mankind; it does, however, change according to the circumstances of time and environment. 2,000 years ago, it would have been very difficult for two homosexuals to enter into a relationship upholding their moral obligation to their community; but today that can be a reality.

FINAL NOTE: GODLESS, DISEASED PERVERTS

When, in the United States, the slaves were first freed, it was widely believed that they were inherently unintelligent. Of course, as slaves it had been illegal for them to receive an education, and so upon their freedom nearly all were illiterate and without any formal schooling. It was also believed that they had naturally shorter life spans and were more susceptible to disease and illness. Pointing to their “lack of intelligence” they were refused education; pointing to their “natural infirmity” they were denied medical treatment and forced to live in squalid unsanitary conditions. And so the stereotypes were indeed made manifest by the very people who perpetuated them.

Today, homosexuals are seen by many as godless, diseased, and promiscuous. As such, they have often been thrown out of and excommunicated from their churches, rejected by heterosexual friends, abandoned and disowned by their own parents. Without the support of their church, their friends, or their family; having been taught all their lives that they are wretched sinners; and with often long suppressed sexual urges, it is of little surprise that many homosexuals turn to the very lifestyle they’d been falsely accused of to begin with. Finally, things are changing. Just as the first efforts to provide the freed slaves and their children with education, medicine, and sanitary living conditions led to generations which progressively proved the stereotypes to be false, the early works of homosexuals and their allies who refused to believe in the stereotypes have given rise to a generation of grown gays and lesbians who are proving that they can be just as loving, committed and moral as heterosexuals and to an increasing number of young gays and lesbians who are committed to living a good and decent life. As more and more churches embrace homosexuals and celebrate their unions, more gays and lesbians are able to live both honestly and reverently.

I strive every day to see and bring out the best in myself and others. I believe in living a good and moral life, I am looking forward to one day having a family of my own, and I am working towards becoming an ordained minister with the open encouragement and blessing of my church. I am also a homosexual. I thank God that I was born in an age in which I could live this life as I feel I am truly meant to, and I pray that the hatred born of misunderstanding may be lifted before I find myself blessed with children of my own.

On Morality

"Do you think being gay is a sin? Is it a choice? Suicide, is that bad? It helps with pain and I was a chirstian for 15years but nothing benifited and my life was still miserable and pathetic, what then?" -Anonymous

This series of questions was posted a little while back on my Formspring account. As I consider the answers, I realize that there is an underlying concept that I have to first address, a concept I began to ponder while studying Philosophy and Ethics this past semester at college.

I used to be plagued by the thought of whether or not there was some universal form of morality. The moral codes by which people live vary from culture to culture and time period to time period. Morality seems then to be a social construct, some artifice of mankind created to keep people in line. This, however, has never felt wholly true. When I commit a wrongdoing, when I feel that pang of guilt, it seems to come from deep within me, and not from some echo of my mother’s or minister’s voice in my head. Would a child raised without human contact have a sense of morality? No, but nor would that child have the capability of speech or higher thought, those things which we consider key elements of our humanity. Yes, we learn morality from our culture, but there is something as universally human about it as speech and higher thought.

So what is that universality of morals? What remains absolute throughout time, place, and culture? I think it is the underlying purpose, or goal, of morality.

That purpose is the immediate and long-term survival and thriving of humankind.

Every culture has worked towards this, and every moral system I have ever been exposed to or heard of has believed itself to be working towards this end. Those cases of immoral actions or codes of those who believed themselves to be “good” can be seen as instances in which there was a lack or error in knowledge or perspective. Consider that in the most heinous cases of mass-murder and genocide, the attackers first removed the victims from their concept of humankind; and in those cultures which practiced human sacrifice or other activities recognized in the modern world as supremely immoral, those actions were performed from a belief that they were necessary for the survival or thriving of humankind itself. So, while I may reject the particular “moral” codes or behaviors of others, I recognize an underlying universality which supports in my own life the idea that morality is something more than just a social construct. Additionally, we can see both that there is an absolute “right” and “wrong” (that which most or least fulfills the above-stated purpose) and that that which is most morally right or wrong can change through time and environment (as the conditions for the survival and thriving of mankind change).

For these reasons, when I am struck in life with a challenging moral dilemma or question I ponder how the options for acting in that situation affect the immediate and long-term survival and thriving of humankind. Survival is easy enough to measure, but thriving is clearly a different challenge. Just what it is I mean by “thriving” is somewhat difficult to describe, as it relates to that element of our humanity which is largely ineffable. I feel, however, that the greatest evidence of mankind thriving is participation in the arts. When people are not just surviving, but creating and observing art – be it painting, literature, performance, or some other form – then we can be confident they are thriving.

But why does it even matter? Following a moral code or instruction from some organization or teacher can be dangerous – all we have to do is consider how many people have performed heinous deeds under the belief that they were following orders from the morally just to see the value in finding a system of independent evaluation. With this understanding of the underlying and universal purpose of morality, we can then examine any issue, and with the proper knowledge and perspective arrive at the most truly just and moral conclusion.

Life After Death and Suicide

Asked via formspring.me/iamgarrett :

What do you think happens to people who commit suicide when they die? Kinda need closure on this.

- Anonymous

To be honest, I've been rather afraid of answering this question, due to the final statement of "kinda need closure on this." There are two potential reasons for this statement, each of which make me fear for the affect of my answer improperly framed. Out of ignorance of you or your situation, and in recognition that someone else of either situation might read this, I will address both reasons for such a statement before answering the question.

If you need closure because you've been contemplating suicide, please please please take a step back from the ledge. A prevailing message over the last few weeks to the youth of today is that "it gets better" - and it's been a message for a reason. It is the truth. There are few things I ever actively scold adults for saying; one of those things is when I hear "High school is the best years of your life." Ha! When we stay true to our selves, and support our higher self, life truly does get better. Hell, even if we don't life still gets better by your mid-twenties. Even if it is not circumstance, but rather a heavy inexplicable melancholy you find weighing upon you, know that this too will pass. And don't discount a good therapist or minister, etc. either - there's a lot of crappy ones out there, but life has been personally and profoundly affected by one good therapist, and I am a strong advocate of professional assistance when things get dire. Even beyond the tragedy of death itself, and beyond the tragedy of suicide, I find one of the most troubling things about suicide is this: to possess the capacity to actually violate one's animal urge for survival and contemplate suicide is a sign of veritable intellectual and emotional depth - and people with that sort of depth are precisely the sort of people we need to keep on living in this world.

If, on the other hand, you need closure because someone close to you has taken their own life, I offer my sincerest condolences (as useless as they may be). It is never easy to lose a loved one; it is even harder when that individual takes their own life. Grief melds with (causeless) guilt, and the ensuing pain is only embittered further with the question of life after death. I encourage you to remember the good times, the happy days, and celebrate the life your loved one lived. Take your love for that individual and share it with others, such that the world may be lifted up a notch. Know that if nothing else, they continue to live in your heart, and though this does not erase the sense of tragedy and is but a sliver of light, sometimes that sliver will be just what you need. And with time, that sliver can grow even brighter.

That being said, it is my personal obligation to answer the question at hand, which is essentially what happens to us after we die. This is actually one of those things about which I am most uncertain. I don't believe in a physical heaven or hell, and reincarnation as commonly understood seems to me to be more a product of vanity than anything else. If it wasn't for the near death experiences and "ghost" encounters I have heard of from close and trusted individuals, I would likely believe that there is no form of individual continuation after death. Regardless, I still believe that any form of ourselves continuing beyond physical death has little to do with our self as we know it. I believe in a body-mind-spirit both in humanity and the universe/god. The three are separate, yet connected. The self that I am, Garrett, is a combination of these three, and when my body dies these will become separated. The me that I am will only have this lifetime, and any form of myself that may continue will not have the same identity or consciousness that I currently possess in life. Of this much I am certain. What this means to be in contemplation of my eventual death is this: when I die, that is it - whatever I lived, however I felt will in that moment be made eternal and immutable. In my darkest moments, when I myself have stood on the brink of suicide, it has been the knowledge that doing so would not end my misery but rather cement it that has aided me in stepping back. And considering how joyous my life has become, despite my once thinking such joy an impossibility, I am damned glad that I have stepped back from that ledge.

The Question of Evil

Recently, a classmate of mine with whom I've briefly discussed Unity and my personal beliefs, emailed me with the following question(s):

"If God is everything and in all things, does bad/evil/satan exist? If so how? and is that part of God too? And thus, is that part of us too?"

A fundamental aspect of all theologies is an explanation of the existence of evil. The following is my personal belief, influenced, informed, and supported by Unity teachings.

The very first basic Unity principle states that there is only one power and one presence active in the universe, God the good.

            This often gives rise to the belief that everything in the universe is therefore good. This philosophy is incredibly relieving to people who have often felt weighed down by the belief and fear of some supernatural force of Evil out to destroy us. Moreover, the philosophy that everything is good can even be beneficial in dealing with the minor tragedies of life; when faced with an unwanted break-up, a sudden loss of employment, or other unexpected setback, we can keep our spirits high with the belief that it is ultimately a good thing, part of “Divine Order.”

            The problem is that this philosophy, like many others, is one which as Rev. Mark Fisk puts it, “works until it doesn’t.” While the belief that everything is ultimately a good thing can help us deal with the minor tragedies of life, it suddenly loses its uplifting power in the face of the greater tragedies. I refuse to ascribe to any faith or philosophy which attempts to claim that murder, rape, and pedophilia are actually good things, “blessings in disguise” or “part of God’s plan.” And if I’m in mourning, don’t you dare tell me that “it’s just meant to be.” This philosophy that every single thing is a good thing is also ludicrous in the face of the Holocaust, Apartheid, modern sex slaves, or devastating hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis.

            Luckily, this is not what the first Unity principle means.

            Rather, what it is saying is that the only thing with any power, the only thing with any true presence, is good. Yes, bad things do happen. But no matter how great the tragedy, no matter how horrible the wrong, good persists. When a friend of mine was stabbed in the neck while working as a bouncer, there was not one ounce of me that then or now would consider the event a “good” thing. It wasn’t. It was a sad, horrible, tragedy. But afterwards, his friends and family came together supporting each other in kindness and love. Bonds of loyalty were formed, comforts given. The other guys who worked as bouncers took the event to heart, some leaving the job, others exercising greater caution in it. These and other things were all good things. They didn’t outweigh the bad event of the death, but they didn’t have to – the point is that something bad happened, but good persisted. In the international aid after a natural disaster; in the creation of the United Nations after WWII, an organization with lofty goals of peace; in the inspirational words and actions of such figures as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr.; in these things we can see the power of good persisting in the face of horrible events and circumstances.

            This, then, is what is truly meant by Divine Order; not that there is some anthropomorphic deity with a micromanaged plan for all our lives, but that the divine presence in all things retains its goodness and need only to be recognized and called on in times of tragedy.

            The point is that goodness can never be destroyed; only suppressed or ignored. I often use the analogy of light – there are shadows in the world, places where the light is not clearly shown, but shadows have no power or presence when exposed to the light.

            Taking this analogy further, one might be compelled to declare the objects casting shadows as representative of evil. I would argue, however, that those objects blocking the light are simply those things which suppress our innate goodness – our fears, doubts, negative adaptations, ignorance, etc.

            One of the great difficulties I have with a belief in evil is just how few people throughout time have ever actually considered themselves to be evil. Our great archetype of evil, Adolf Hitler, certainly believed that what he was doing was a good thing. So too did most if not all of the greatest tyrants and terrible figures of our history. Of course I do not think for one instant that a belief in doing good makes one good, but if evil was truly a separate force vying for control, why then does no one desire to be evil?

            Evil is a convenience. It is easier to simply call some thing or some one evil and avoid it or hate it than actually delve into the questions of why and how something is wrong. Applying the black and white labels of good and evil to life is simply a rather lazy way to go about things – and with just a little bit of critical thinking, it swiftly becomes nearly impossible to ignore the fact that is not a world of black and white but a world of color.

            Of course, this view plays into the idea that good and evil are completely and utterly subjective, and can call into question then the concept of Good as existing.

            But this is an argument against Evil, and while I most firmly believe that Goodness is real, I shall save that lengthy argument for a later date.

[Please note that I am neither ordained, licensed, nor certified with the Unity organization, and the views and opinions I express in this and all other posts are not meant to be representative of what Unity officially believes or teaches. For more information on Unity's official teachings, please visit www.unity.org/aboutunity]