I must be autistic!

If there were such a thing as "coming out" as autistic, I would probably say that is what this post is all about.  I have been suspecting ASD for several years now, off and on.  Most recently, it came to the point where I finally decided to get evaluated and as I waited for my evaluation, I joined an online group for autistic women and mothers of autistic girls.  I learned so much through that group and the various resources they referred me to! Chief among the things I learned was that there are so many different ways to "present" as autistic!  

[Reminds me of the gender conversation being had in society today; there are many different ways to be a woman or a man.  Even outside of transgender/nonbinary presentation.  There are so many different ways that cis women, for instance, present their femininity to the world.  Some are stereotypical based on the culture under whose influence they live.  Others are more androgenous to varying degrees.  Women come in all different shapes, sizes, colors, personalities, with different talents, interests, and struggles in life.  What's another dimension (in the form of transwomen)?  But I digress.]

The line I kept reading about finally got internalized: "if you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person."  What this means to me today is that I cannot compare myself to other autistics in an effort to gauge if I am somehow "autistic enough" to warrant the label.  

Somene in my online group broke it down for me like this: "Lack of eye contact, anxiety based stimming, speech difficulties are not 'traits' of autism.  They are symptoms of autistics who are overwhelmed." Whoa!  

What this means is that while yes, for some autistics, they will visibly struggle with eye contact, anxiety, communication, etc, this isn't what makes them autistic.  There is something underneath, the way their brains are wired, that leads to this manner of expression when the person is under excessive stress.  Now, excessive stress is a relative term, and different people have different thresholds for stress, so it would be too simplistic to simply say that if we remove all possible stressors from an autistic's life, they will no longer present with the more stereotypical behaviors that we associate with autism.  Rather, it means that we need to look beyond the external presentation and acknowledge that there is a differen neurology going on that will in effect have different results from those of a neurotypical brain.  For better or for worse.

So, what does it mean to have an autistically wired brain?  Not, "what does it look like", but "what does it mean"?  It means that we experience the world through a different lense than those with a neurotypical wiring.  And our inner experiences are going to manifest in external behaviors in one way or another, some more socially acceptable than others.  

For instance, we all experience pain through our various senses.  However, what is considered a painful trigger will differ between a neurotypical person and a neurodivergent person.  Neurotypical people would respond to a stimuli as painful if it were something the majority of people accept as "obviously" painful - a blow with a hard item, or a cut of the skin, or boiling hot water, etc.  We would not, however, describe more "mundane" experiences as painful: an annoying tag in a t-shirt, the thudding of bass from a neighbor's radio, a puff of air from the covers being pulled down quickly around one's face.  But for those of us with hypersensitivities, these can be experienced in the same way (painfully) as the more obvious stimulii. 

Likewise, we all go through moments of insecurity, self-consciousness, or anxiety.  Maybe when we're handing the keys to the car to our teenager for the first time, or before doing kareoke on a dare, or after a questionable haircut.  But generally speaking, neurotypical people can get through it, and even laugh about it afterwards.  Neurodivergent people, on the other hand, may go straight into panic mode if a random stranger asks them for the time at the bus stop, or if they have to make a phone call to inquire about something, or when a well-meaning group wants to welcome you as the newcomer by asking you to stand up and introduce yourself.  We may feel like we're about to jump off a cliff, and freeze, unable to think, much less say anything.

We all have days when we feel like we have "two left feet" or like we "woke up on the wrong side of the bed".  We want a do-over because things aren't going as planned.  For neurotypical people, they are generally able to do just that - hit the metaphorical reset button, and try again.  But for a neurodivergent person, realizing that they can't figure out how to combine the ingredients in their refrigerator, freezer, and pantry into a meal can bring them to tears.  Being forced to work a new update on their email address can feel like the world is out to get them and they "can't do anything right."  

No one likes to be disappointed when they were looking forward to something.  Neurotypical people may sigh, roll their eyes, and make a sarcastic comment as they recalibrate what they were doing to accomodate the change.  Neurodivergent people may completely lose their train of thought and be unable to pick up where they left off without starting all over again, if at all.

Neurotypical people often tap their pencil on the desk during a test, or shake their leg when they're sitting waiting for something.  Neurodivergent people may flap their hands or rock instead.

I could go on but will stop here.  If it's a matter of describing the quirky ways that my brain is wired, then there isn't a better explanation than this: I must be autistic.

How I Experience God

How I Experience God

1. doing good/making a difference in the world (causes: environment, immigration, poverty, health, education)

2. singing/music

3. being surrounded by Creation in nature

4. being inspired or motivated to grow and become a better version of myself (cultivating virtues, self-help with healthy boundaries and self-esteem, working on my body via exercise and nutrition)

5. learning about the world around us (science, history, anthropology, languages...)

6. feeling a sense of connection to people in other times and places (tradition and ritual, though my two homebirths did the same thing)

It seems that the only one of the above that I would need conventional organized religion for is #6.  And since I have experienced that sense most acutely outside of the context of religion (by giving birth at home and having a keen sense of connection to the countless women who likewise gave birth before me and who continue to give birth around the world), then there must be other ways that I can find a sense of connection to other people.  Perhaps through tradition and ritual that isn't tied to religion.  National traditions? Universally human "traditions"? (What do most people tend to do?  What have they tended to do throughout history?  Romantic love, parental love, coming of age, experiencing beauty, practicing goodness via altruism, challenging ourselves physically/mentally, laughter, pursuit of truth/knowledge/wisdom...)

What would my own religion look like?

 If I were to start my own alternative-to-religion group, what would it look like?

For starters, while it would be an alternative to religion, it wouldn't be an alternative to "belief-in-Godism."  We wouldn't demand a belief in God, but we would not try to hide it, either.  We would assume God's existence, and this would come across in some of the wording of our talks and songs, perhaps.

We would include music.  Classical, chant, drumming, select Gospel and Christian rock, global folk music, etc.

We would read from Wisdom books for inspiration.  Wisdom books would include selections such as the Psalms and Proverbs and Isaiah from the Hebrew Bible, selections from the New Testament, the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, the Greco-Roman clasical literature, great thinkers of the Renaisance, Indigenous Lore, etc.

We would pick a theme and focus our reading, music, and talk on it.  We would tie the theme to some practical application in our daily lives. Sometimes these applications would focus on self-improvement, other times they would focus on serving the community.

We would break into small groups based on more specific interests and goals.  Perhaps there is a need for a group that brings prolifers and prochoicers together to struggle in a spirit of wanting to reach a common goal - decreasing the number of abortions being saught.

I have to stop here and point out that as I was writing the above paragraphs, the ideas started to sound familiar and then I realized there already exists a place like this, and it's called the Unitarian Universalist Church!

I've struggled with UU because they are quite liberal in their approach to social justice, and I am much more moderate.  I especially struggle with the issue of abortion.  I have never been able to bring myself to join a place that officially supports abortion on demand, no questions asked.  But below are the UU principles (as opposed to a creed) that serve to unify UUs.

1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; 

3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;  (*I imagine this is where the abortion issue breaks down for me.  I'm still struggling here, because I know it's not as simple as "make it illegal" and voila! The problem goes away.  I'd have to say the problem isn't abortion.  The problem is unplanned and difficult pregnancies. I think there's some common ground that can be had here between prolifers and prochoicers, but so far I see the two sides yelling past each other.)u

6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Right now, the liberal left is pro-BLM and pro-choice in abortion without limitations, as well as pro-transgender umbrella issues, which are varied in themselves.  So I worry about the perfect fit, but I think I'm ready to try something different, bc my current situation in a Catholic environment isn't a perfect fit either.  And while I may disagree with them on the literal nature of our common Scriptures, various church laws that limit personal freedom (all male celibate priesthood, no birth control, divorce frowned upon, etc.), I do seem to agree that chastity has a place in a healthy society.  However, even that I'm currently trying to unpack.  (See post on Chastity and Modesty, forthcoming.)

But when I think about which environment I'd prefer to raise my children in.... I want my kids to see women in positions of leadership, including the priesthood/pastorship.  I want them to see same sex couples with children, people who do not conform to gendered stereotypes, people from various walks of life.  In a Catholic setting, that diversity would most likely be in the form of ethnicity and income, if just the right church is found.  In a UU setting, most likely that diversity would instead come in the form of a variety of though and belief, and alternative lifestyles.  We'll probably need to alternate Sundays to get the full effect of what I'm going for here.  A piece-meal effort, in a way.  A hodgepodge approach.  Certainly no such thing as a one-size-fits-all.

What if Daoism is my treatment plan?

 I have wondered for years about the possibility that I may be "on the autism spectrum".  Finally, this year, I got evaluated and instead of ASD, I was given GAD (generalized anxiety), mild OCD (purely obsessive), and Avoidant Personality Disorder (which I guess explains my preference for not initiating social interactions).  I thought that was that, and that I would be happy knowing that there is, indeed, a psychological explanation for my "weirdness".  

Six months later, and I'm starting to doubt that my eval was the final word.  I'm reminded of how adult females are often misdiagnosed because we present with different symptoms than do our male counterparts or those whose symptoms were obvious enough to have been diagnosed at a young age.

So now I sort of feel like I'm starting to go down the rabbit hole again.  And I realize that this has happened before in another area of my life: religious seeking. I would convince myself that I found "the truth" and that I would convert, only to find some point of contention and abandon the idea. 

Trying to be objective and assess the situation from the perspective of the diagnoses I have been given (assuming they are correct), I wonder if this is my OCD kicking in. It could be argued that the incessant second-guessing and research is the compulsion, while the sense of not having found an identity place to land on is the obsession.  This certainly would explain the situation.  But whether it does or not, the bigger question is: so what?

So what if my current state of unrest (again) is my OCD acting out?  So what if it's not the OCD, but rather my inner autistic insisting on being recognized?  To be perfectly honest, if I were to be diagnosed as autistic, I would undoubtedly have found an identity landing place, a community of people with similar experiences of the world.  What religion could never do for me, the autistic community could.  

Interestingly, the autistic community itself is generally much more accepting of self-diagnosis than I am.  I feel like an intruder, especially considering that I do not have as severe struggles as some on the spectrum.  It's like I'm not "autistic enough".  But an official diagnosis wouldn't change the fact that I still can "pass" as neurotypical.  That feels very ablist to say, but not sure how else to express the sentiment.

Basically, when I search for "the true religion" or "the perfect homeschooling philosophy" or "the correct mental health diagnosis", I'm looking for something or someone outside of myself to tell me that I'm on the right track.  But Daoism would have me say, "so what" that someone else approves or disapproves?  Their opinion does not actually make me right or wrong.  What needs attention in all of this is my obsession with external validation.  And Daoism's concepts of WuWei and Yin Yang address that.

If it turns out that I have been autistic all along, so what?  I won't be taking medication.  I won't be filing for any special accomodations.  Perhaps I could bring this knowledge to the therapist's office, assuming I find a therapist that would know what to do with such a diagnosis.  So far none have.

If it turns out that I am not actually autistic, then so what?  It doesn't take away the way I experience the world.  It doesn't make me less sensitive or perceptive.  It doesn't fix my social anxieties.  It doesn't help with my executive function issues. Those are all still there.

I guess I feel like I can't have those issues unless autism is the reason.  Then I feel ok to have them.  But isn't a diagnosis just a medical label?  And aren't labels often used as excuses?  I do want to be able to just be in the world without needing to qualify why I am the way I am.  And yet, seeking an autism diagnosis does just that - it asks for a way to qualify why I am the way I am.  

Catholic religion, Zen Taoist Spirituality

 I like to say I'm religious.   Perhaps I've mistakenly confounded religion and spirituality.  I like to say I'm spiritual as well.  Until recently, I assumed that spirituality necessarily had to come out of religion.  So since I identify as Catholic by virtue of having been raised with this faith tradition; being most familiar with its rituals, terminology, and practices; and continuting to attend weekly Mass, I assumed that my spirituality must therefore likewise "be Catholic".  And there's nothing wrong with Catholic spirituality, except that it wasn't resonating with me and I couldn't figure out why.  

I recently heard something along these lines for a definition of religion: "The rules someone created for their spirituality, passed on to others who forgoe their own experiences or feel compelled to force them into the descriptions and explanations of the originators of said religion."  Ok, I added everything to the right of the comma.  But I think that's a really good conceptualization of what religion is, exactly.  And as such, it finally allowed me to separate the two in my own life.  I can be religiously Catholic but spiritually... something else entirely.

What I mean by this is that there are aspects of religion that I want to maintain, and there are aspects of spirituality that I'm ready to embrace without them being pre-approved by my religious community.

For instance, I like going to church on Sundays.  I like dressing up, sitting in a beautiful church with a group of other people who presumably also want to a) worship God, b) learn how to be better versions of themselves, or c) both.  I like to sing praise and worship songs, and especially when these are well done and inspiring.  I like to flow with the familiar gestures, postures, and prescriptive prayers, feeling myself a part of a greater body of believers, even if we don't exactly believe the exact same things.  What we do have in common is that we believe in "a higher power", eternal life, and the call to do the next right thing.  That's going to have to be enough for me.  

I like to sit back and hear the Scriptures read and then explained and applied to daily life.  It's like a little workshop, and I am an educational nerd - learning is fun for me, what can I say?  

I like the opportunities to humble myself physically, quiety myself, and take stock of my life and where I need to improve and what I get to be grateful for.  Communion has taken on a different and frankly better meaning for me once I allowed God to no longer be limited to occupying physical space solely within the consecrated host, generally housed in the tabernacle.  Instead of getting that once-per-week chance to "feel God's presence" when receiving holy communion, I now know that I can be in God's presence anywhere, any time I meditate, contemplate (especially nature!), or practice mindfulness. 

Rather, receiving holy communion now is a reminder that I am one out of many in the human family.  My fellow church-goers receive communion just like me.  And communion is a reminder of God's presence, so as I watch others receive (which I do tend to enjoy and it really touches my heart when I see people express reverence before receiving), I remember how God is present in each individual that I see go through the line.  And then we are sent forth at the end of Mass, with the goal to carry this presence of God to others in our lives.

The symbolism is absolutely fantastic.  The only part of Mass that gives me pause is the communal recitation of the Nicene Creed.  But I am willing to overlook it (and figuratively sit it out) to gain the rest of the blessings of the Mass.  

If I'm in a good church, I have religious art to help me think about Jesus, my role model.  When I consider the Stations of the Cross, again I think of the symbolism of each station and how it can apply to my life.  Even just gazing on the crucifix tells me: "this is the price of authenticity: death to the ego". We must die to self in order to live into eternity.

While I'm on religious art, the better images of Mary allow me to think of the maternal aspect of God.  It's not the literal intention of the Madonna.  She's to represent the Church, not God, but I am trying to recover from filial loyalty to the Church.  Instead, I much prefer to think of God as my Mother.  I do not compound Mary with God-the-Father.  I do not believe she is a goddess.  She is merely a symbol of the feminine aspect of God, that's all.

These are the aspects of my religion that I am happy with and have found deeper meaning in and would like to maintain.  (Symbolism extends to holy days as well, by the way.)

But in the last few years, as I attempted to go all in with my faith (and temporarily succeeded), I "got involved" in various church ministries that were meant to build up my faith.  Except that now that I don't believe, I can't seriously continue to sit through small groups or Bible Studies where it is impossible to pretend that I believe what they do, if the goal of such groups is to grow in holiness/authenticity (I like to think the two aspects cannot be separated).  So this is the first step I need to take "away" from my religion and "towards" my spirituality.

I enjoy small groups.  I like getting to know similarly-minded people in a safe environment.  But my Catholic small groups are no longer made up of similarly-minided people because my mind has differentiated itself from the groupthink that is required.  So perhaps I need a meditation group of some sort.  I would like to stick with a spiritually-minded group, because I do want to keep contact with people other than mere secularists/materialsts/atheists.  I feel like an entire realm of my existence and experience is disregarded by such people.  I don't wish to compel them to see the world my way, but I prefer not to spend much time being exposed to their skepticism. 

Another area of spirituality, a rather huge one, actually, is one that I have neglected.  Private practice.  I need to "do spirituality" on my own, every day, and I will notice a) a closer relationship with God, and b) a lessened need to spend extra time in religious circles.

I want to practice:

1. Lectio Divina

2. Nature contemplation

3. Mindfulness in daily tasks

4. Yoga, Tai Chi, QiGong

5. Breathing/Sitting Meditation, chanting

6. Music! Classical and praise and worship and world genres!

7. Poetry writing, journaling

8. Retreats (especially silent! Perhaps self-guided?)

9. Zen practices like Ikebana (Japanese flower arranging), Zen garden, martial art, tea ceremony...

10. Self-improvement education (documentaries, videos, books, etc.)

Even though I've mentioned Zen, I lean much more heavily towards Taoism than Buddhism.  But that's for another day.

Recovering from Religion, Hanging on to Jesus, Where to go from here?

Recovering from religion, yet not hanging up the belief in God.  What kind of mess do I find myself in now?  I have my beliefs, and they're not atheistic.  They're not even agnostic.  

Most likely, I'd say my understanding of God is panentheistic - that God is a super-personal entity/force that permeates all reality, and as such, is found in all people and throughout nature.  This is not the same as "worshipping nature/the universe"... I don't think?  Unless we redefine nature and the universe to mean that overarching "isness" that unites us all together and is far beyond our ability to understand "it".  If I am called to be "one with God" in the way that Jesus was "one with the Father" (which, btw, is in the Bible, John 17:21), then what I am stating here is nothing new nor radical.

I believe that God is the Source of all that is, and that everything (and everyone) returns to this Source.  As such, I believe in eternal life because death is merly a metamorphosis from this life to the next.  I believe in some form of reincarnation, though the details I don't think are all that important.

Interestingly, CS Lewis argues that there must be a Super-Personal Creator-God for there to be natural law and first principles by which all people throughout history and in all cultures abide by.  Or at least we agree that it is better, for instance, to be compassionate than to inflict intentional harm on others.  Or to be helpful and honest rather than interfere with others every chance we get.  Basically, we believe in the golden rule - do to others as we would have others do to us.  We apply it differently by group, but underneath it all, we agree.  

Basically, it goes like this: The purpose/meaning of human life is to "be happy", and to help others do likewise.  Now, to be happy doesn't mean to get everything we want.  Rather, it means to have our basic needs met, to feel free to explore who we are and the world around us, to ask questions without fear of retribution or ridicule, to take risks and pick ourselves up when we inevitably make mistakes, to have a clear conscience and sleep well at night, to look forward to each new day.  Again, application will look different in different people's lives, but we all want to be happy, and we want to be happy simply for happiness's sake.  We may join a religion, go to church, pray, etc. so that we can be happy, but we do not seek to be happy for any reason other than to simply be happy.

Some people need religion to be happy.  Some people need drugs or alcohol to be happy.  Oops, see what we did there?  We used the wrong definition of "happy".  Anytime we wrap our lives around an addiction or compulsion, we are not happy.  We are merely satisfying our ego.  True happiness is joy and peace.  Contentment with things as they are.  Lack of constant insatiable seeking after something that we think will make us happy, and instead, embracing the power within to simply choose to be happy.

As I write this, Buddhism and Taoism come to mind.  Neither has a God figure in their world-view.  Should this concern me?  Is it my indoctrinated fear of the wrath of God if I don't believe in Him that is causing me this concern?  Frankly, fear is a terrible reason to make any decision; of this I am certain.  And while I don't "fear" God in the sense that I think God will punish me for, well, being human (after all, God did make me human so He knew what He was getting), I am in awe of God.  I look out into space, or even into a vast openness of nature, and I think about how I am such a small part of something much greater than myself.  I breathe in, and there I have God living inside of me.  

I cannot abandon the label "God" because I am much too invested in it.  But I can redefine it and reconceptualize it so it makes better sense to my experience of this God.  Why can't we personify God, as long as this personification helps us on our journey of happiness for all? (Or better yet, peace and joy for all!)  Unfortunately, most religions that have personified God have ended up twisting the message and wringing control out of those who trust them to be guides on the spiritual path.

But I digress.  I need to return to my main theme.  First, I believe God exists, but not the way mainstream Christianity has explained God.  Second, I believe in eternal life, but not the way mainstream Christianity has explained it.  Third, I believe in objective morality, but there is a lot of nuance here, because there are many applications that can often be at odds with each other.  For instance, let's take a look at the basic "Thou Shalt Not Kill".  

War is killing.

Eating meat is killing.

The death penalty is killing.

Abortion is killing.

Self-defense is killing.

You may say that this is a mistranslation, and it is supposed to say "Thou Shalt not Murder".  Ah, now we enter tricky territory.  Murder is defined as the "killing of another person without justification or excuse."  So does that mean that as long as we have a good reason, we can kill?  And who determines what that good reason is?  That's how we get into "just war" territory, and "women's rights" to stop the beating of their unborn babies' hearts. And of course it gives us free reign to torture animals since taking their life does not fit the "murder" definition.  See?  Excuses are never a good way to establish right and wrong.

Maybe there is only one moral imperative - to treat others the way we would want to be treated.  But if you've ever heard of the 5 love languages, you know that different people have different ideas of how they like to be treated!  Some people will feel unloved unless they receive gifts, while others (ehem, myself) hate to give and receive gifts.  Some people like words of affirmation as a sign of being loved (ehem, moi), while others think they're merely empty words.  Some people want to shower others with quality time as that is how they express their love, while others may feel suffocated by the constant togetherness.  Some people show their love via acts of service (which can be devestating for those prone to codependency), while still others by physical touch (which can be especially tricky for anyone who has gone through physical abuse of any kind). So how can we possibly treat others the way we want to be treated if that may actually do nothing to help them feel happy and may in fact interfere with their happiness?  

And what about treating others the way they want to be treated?  How do we know how they want to be treated?  It sounds like a lot of work.  You'd have to be in tune with each individual you come in contact with.  You'd have to actually be present to their needs, take an active interest in them, make the effort to adjust from person to person.  We prefer a boxed approach where everyone is treated the same, since it's easy.  Unfortunately, it's also ineffective and often counterproductive.  

Either way, religion cannot give us the answer to how to treat any given person, because the answer will be - ask them!  And we don't need religion to do that.

And then there's Jesus.  If you didn't grow up in a Christian faith tradition, you may not understand what Jesus has to do with anything.  It would seem the basics got covered above (God, eternal life, morality).  But I've tried to convert out of Christianity before, and I'll never forget the "advice" from a rabbi that has stayed with me.  He said that we must "fall out of love with Jesus".  Or, "we have to break up with Jesus."  I forget which it was, but you get the idea.  That stopped me in my tracks.

I'm going to use a dumb cliche here, even though I don't get it: I wanted to have my cake and eat it too.  (Why else would I "have" my cake if I wasn't going to "eat" it?!)  Anyway - I wanted to follow the logic of the above observations about God, eternal life, and morality and how they naturally lead me away from organized religion and towards a free-thinking spirituality.  But what do I do with Jesus?  

I'm going to return to fear-based decisions here.  Again, I was indoctrinated to believe that if it wasn't for Jesus, I would be going to hell.  I came to be grateful for my eternal life thanks to Jesus.  I was often reminded by my religion that to disregard Jesus on the cross is to show ultimate ingratitude.  And that is one thing I am not - I am not ungrateful!  Every day I thank God for making me, for giving me another day of life, for my amazing husband and children, for all the creature comforts of our lifestyle, for the ability to help others, for our health and safety... the list goes on.  I. Am. Grateful.

But my religious indoctrination tells me that if I do not "ride on the coattails of Jesus", then I am being ungrateful.  And this wrecks havoc on my self-image.  I know ungrateful people and I dislike them terribly.  I don't want to be like those people.  And so I never fully know what to do about Jesus when I come to this fork in the road.  

The truth is, we can't know the full truth of what Jesus taught, much less what he meant by all of his teachings.  We have "tradition" and early church fathers and "the saits" (those who were mostly in line with orthodoxy) all interpreting for us what happened to be a) written down about Jesus decades after he lived, died, and went to heaven (interpret that as you wish); and b) accepted into the canon of Scripture in the first place (which happened hundreds of years after Jesus time on Earth!).

That said, what needs to be addressed about Jesus is as follows: 

1) Was Jesus a historical person who taught and led by example?  (I believe he was.)

2) Did Jesus die on the cross? (I believe he did.)

3) Did Jesus resurrect on the third day, and does it matter? (Pause)

4) Was Jesus in any way "more than" human? (I do not think he was the "unique Son of God".  Rather, I believe that He showed us how we, too, could live in a reality called "kingdom of God" as children of God.)

5) What did Jesus teach and what did his teachings mean? (If this were clear, we wouldn't have thousands of Christian denominations, many of them claiming others are not even Christian!  And we wouldn't have Islam, which claism that it, too, stands on the shoulders of Jesus the Prophet.)

A lot of well-meaning Christians at this point would tell me that I must take Jesus's resurrection on faith.  Two problems with this: 1) it seems too flimsy a reason to place my entire eternal desitny on someone else's say-so, without concrete evidence, and 2) elsewhere in Christian teaching, we learn that faith is actually a gift from God, not something I can earn or dig up on my own.  So it sounds to me like God will give me the gift of faith to believe in Christian orthodoxy if He wants to (or if it's true), but if I don't have faith, then it can't be my fault.  And faith is something you either have or you don't.  If I don't, that neither proves nor disproves the thing I don't believe.  If I do believe, that also doesn't prove or disprove the thing I believe.  Faith is not proof.

So we are back to the uncertainty of #3&5.  It seems like we cannot resolve this uncertainty.  There are only two ways to move forward from here.  Either we take a leap of faith and turn a blind eye to the fact that we are following a great unknown, or we treat this unknown the way we would any other unknown in life.  The third alternative is to stay stagnant and go nowhere, for we cannot make up our minds as to which way to go.  This has been my lot and I intend to not remain here.  

If there is a crime committed, for instance, and we do not have sufficient evidence to convict the suspect, then we err on the side of caution and do not convict, treating him as not guilty.  He may indeed be guilty, but in case he isn't, without evidence, prudence tells us we cannot convict.  Prudence is considered a Christian virtue, is it not?  So how can we, without evidence, say something is true "just in case it is"?  That isn't prudence talking, that's fear talking!

And frankly, the God I believe in (because I do believe in "God") would not expect faith without providing the evidence to back it up.  Otherwise, he'd be a sloppy God hardly worthy of worship.

What if I allowed Jesus to by my spiritual guru?  What would that spirituality look like?  How would my life be complete in this case?  Without religion, but with Jesus?  

Religious exterior makes way to spiritual interior

 Have you ever frantically looked for something, like your keys or your glasses, especially when you were in a hurry and really needed the item, only to finally find them right on your person all along?  The keys were in your pocket, or the glasses were on your nose (or pushed up on your head like a headband!).  This has been my experience with matters of the spirit.

I grew up unaware that there is a difference between religion and spirituality.  I thought spirituality was an aspect of religion, but that they necessarily had to coexist.  I also thought, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that spirituality is informed by religion, and therefore, one must first be clear on which religion one identifies with, and then one may speak of having any sort of spiritual practice.

For this reason, I bounced from religion to religion, denomination to denomination, church to church, looking for that elusive spiritual home.  On several occasions, I thought I found it, but once the dust settled, I realized there was something missing afterall, and off I went in search of God again.

I have often heard it said that we ought to do or say whatever God puts on our heart, without worrying about any visible "effect", because most of us need to hear (or experience) the same thing multiple times before it starts to get ingrained in our psyche.  As such, you never know if yours may not be that final straw on the proverbial camel's back.

In the same way, how frequently have I read, heard, and reflected on Psalm 46:10, "Be still and know that I am God."  And yet, I kept right on running, metaphorically speaking, looking for God when God has been with me and within me all along.

So what is it about religion that has prevented me from internalizing the very contemplative message of the good news of Jesus?  Namely, that "the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15).  I believe that if Jesus were to incarnate in a singular historic person today, he might instead say things like, "that of God is within you", "the Eucharist is but a small reminder of the Real Presence of God in all places and at all times," "be one with me the way I am one with the Father" (Oh, wait, Jesus already said that.  See John 17:21).

Yet even though these realizations aren't new to me, per se, this is the first time I'm trying to let them stand on their own, without needing someone else, or many someone elses, to interpret and analyze what my personal experience can handle all on its own.  I've heard a Catholic critique of Protestants once that says that "every Protestant is their own Pope", alluding to the fact that Catholics look to the Bishop of Rome for final interpretation of Scripture, while Protestants trust their own interpretation of Scripture.  The elephant in the room of this argument is, of course, that Scripture must be interpreted by someone.  It does not stand alone.  Sola Scriptura is an absurdity.

When I first heard this argument, I sided with Catholic apologetics.  Of course Scripture must be interpreted!  And therefore, to my mind, it made sense to have a single designated person somehow uniquely inspired by the holy Spirit of God to do the necessary interpretation: the Pope.  

Only, this is not at all the only natural end of the need to interpret Scripture.  In  John 16, Jesus is speaking to his disciples, not merely to Peter (the purported "first Pope"), when he says that "when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you." 

It seems to me that Jesus is telling his disciples, which we are all called to be, that the holy Spirit of God will guide us.  All of us.  In other words, God Himself will lead us to the truth.

At this point, it may seem like I am sharing a story of conversion from Catholicism to Protestantism, but I am not.  At least not mainstream, Evangelical Protestantism, which worships Jesus often to the exclusion of actually following Him.  Jesus never once said "worship me".  He never even alluded to it.  There's nothing we can point to and interpret, metaphorically or otherwise, that hints at the idea that Jesus wanted us to organize into a religion where we worship him.  He didn't really address religion much at all, except to call out religious hypocrites (remember Matthew 23:33?  "You snakes! You brood of vipers!") or praise the good works of people from different religious backgrounds then himself (think the Good Samaritan parable, for instance).

Rather, Jesus said over and over again: "follow me".  What does it mean to follow someone?  I don't know about you, but when I think of following someone, I think of following their advice and their example.  I don't know what else it could possibly mean. And the behaviors that Jesus modeled are just as unpopular today as they were in his day: compassion, mercy, forgiveness, peace, acceptance of God's will, love of enemies... These are the ideals, and often when individuals express such virtuous strength of character, they are lauded by other Christians.  

But more often than not, Christians - Protestant and otherwise - find reasons why Jesus's teachings don't apply to them or to the situation at hand.  I'm thinking here of the gay bashing "in the name of Jesus", and all of the related "pious" behaviors and "righteous indignation" over the "sins of others".  I'm thinking here of the shaming of promiscuous women and girls while turning a blind eye to their male accomplices.  

But this just proves how imperfect the followers of Jesus are.  If we were honest about it, rather than trying to hold on to our egos and convince ourselves and others that we are doing such a good job, then we would talk a lot more about taking the logs out of our own eyes instead of micromanaging the specks in the eyes of others (Matthew 7:5).  We would be reminded at every worship service and Bible study and small faith group meeting to be humble and to worry about fixing ourselves and loving others, insead of fixing others and loving ourselves.  (Of course, we ought to love ourselves, since Jesus did command us to do so in Matthew 22:37, but what I'm talking about here is the surprising number of times I've been encouraged to think of myself as a "princess" because I am the daughter of the King.  Yet Jesus never exulted himself, so why should we exult ourselves, if we are to follow him?)

There is a lot more to discuss here, but I'm not writing to convince anyone of anything.  Words can only take us so far anyway.  I am only here to process my own thoughts and help myself embrace this new understanding of spirituality, which is to say that it is not dependent on religion and in fact is independent of it.  Religion CAN help on our spiritual journey, but it can also hinder us.  Therefore, religion itself cannot be the final litmus test of all things spiritual and divine.  There must be a source independent from both that can guide us.  We know, if we believe the Bible, that this independent source is known as the holy Spirit of God.