Examining Worship
Ever since I was a child, I've had problems with worship. Back then, the question in my mind was "If God is everywhere, why do we have to go to church to talk to him?" For a long time I rejected worship, but there appears to be a need for worship and other social religions rituals, on a communal if not individual level. The Buddha himself was against such things, and instructed his students not to use them. However, almost immediately after his death several religous groups based on his other teachings sprang up, despite his instructions against it. Certain passages of the new testament suggest the same thing about Christianity.
My problems with worship have changed, but they are still there. These days they mainly center around the organization of community worship, not the insistence of location.
The problem centers from my beliefs about the individual and the numinous, that which many of us call God. There is not a barrier between the individual and true knowledge of the numinous, at least not in terms of Descarte's trickster demons. The only limitation is our minds. The numinous is so large and strange that our minds simply cannot comprehend it. We can only comprehend parts of it, and get glimmers of the truth. We all see different things when we look at the numinous. Sometimes we see what we need to see, and sometimes we see what the numinous needs to show us. Sometimes we see what we want to see, and not what is there. Thus, we are all right in our beliefs, even though we are all wrong.
"That's nice Ichabod, but what has this got to do with worship?" Don't pitch a fit, I'm getting there.
In traditional worship (at least in the traditions of the community that I grew up in), there is a preacher and a congregation. The communication is one way, from a single person to the group. The preacher may take into account things the group has expressed to him, when he plans his sermon. However, the worship is essentially moderated by a single individual, or in some cases small groups of individuals.
But why? How can we know that the moderator of the worship has a better connection with the numinous than others in the group? If you compare us all to the numinous, any differences are so small as to be negligible. It's like comparing 10 and 11 to 200,000,000,000,000. The difference is so small it doesn't matter. How can the moderator know what I need to see, and what the numinous needs to show me? Human beings are too different (despite all efforts to the contrary) to all need to see the same thing at the same time. Furthermore, if you examine my beliefs on the afterlife, you can see that this is not a good way to organize things. The information is not flowing in an efficient manner. The circular chains of causation necessary for a properly functioning mind are not in existence. If there are 100 people in the room with a different perspective than mine, why should I only get to listen to one of them?
I have recently been going to Quaker Friends Meetings. Friends meetings are mostly silent, but if anyone is moved by the numinous ("the spirit") to speak, they are free to do so. Before and after the Friends talk to each other, as a group, not with moderation. For once in my life I can go into a place of worship and feel like I am supposed to be there. It is like a higher mind, made up of our minds, quietly meditating by itself. These Quakers know what they're doing.
Afterword
By saying we are all as wise when compared with the numinous, I do not mean to belittle the great visionaries of the human race. Every now and then, someone comes along with an amazing vision of the numinous. People like Jesus, Muhammad, Lao-tzu and Sidartha. These people see something in the numinous which is greatly needed in their time, and the longevity of their teachings shows us that some of these visions are things that are needed in all times. All would do well to listen to them. That still does not mean that such people should be the focus of worship. Worship is a community activity, one of the most important parts of religion, and it needs to be done by the community, not by a moderator.
What I say above is rather universalist, and universalism has a tendency to be warped into "everything is okay." That is not what I am saying at all. I believe in certain moral absolutes. Don't use aggressive violence. Tell the truth. Respect traditions of personal property. Don't judge without evidence.
Last Modified 6/9/99
Created 4/21/99