Validity of Religious Experiences ... Or Not?

The central article in the front page section of the Salt Lake Tribune today is about Warren Jeffs, the on trial leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and his control over followers of the church even while he was a fugitive and trying to evade capture by authorities. The story is based on Jeffs' diary which was made public by the Texas court. You may want to read the entire story - I would encourage that - which is found at: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11844447 and is written by Brooke Adams.

There is one section on which I want to focus. From the story is this description:

Jeffs would invite select family members and followers to join him in prayer, giving them the chance to feel, through his touch, the "all-consuming fire of heaven."

Several women, Jeffs said, bore witness that they had seen heavenly beings while in his presence or watched as he was physically taken away.

I cannot begin to understand what those women saw or thought they saw, but, based on other things I have read from people who are still part of the FLDS, I would bet that they would still affirm the reality and the truth of their religious experience in seeing "heavenly beings" or in seeing Jeffs "taken away" by these divine messengers.

That leads to my wonderings. In some religious circles, the claim is made that every person's religious experiences are to be considered just as valid and as true as every other person's. Thus, for instance, in those circles, I should not assert that those women were mistaken in what they saw and merely manipulated by their charismatic leader. Their perceptions define the validity and truthfulness of their experiences. If they believed it was true, no one should dispute their claim. In the same way, they should not tell me that my religious experiences were invalid or untrue even though I do not follow the teachings of Warren Jeffs.

BUT, what do you do when someone's religious teaching leads to violence or to the degradation of other human beings. If Preacher X teaches that a particular group of people is sinful and do not deserve to live, for example, should that be allowed to stand without a challenge? At what point, then, should we cease to be accepting of the validity of religious experiences and call the Preacher and the followers to task? I hope you struggle with this ass much as I do.

Is this really a problem?

An AP story out of Maryland caught my eye. A retired barber, Joe Godlewski in Cresaptown Maryland, has decided that there needs to be a Christian alternative to kosher salt. So, he is marketing Blessed Christians Salt, sea salt that has been blessed by an Episcopal priest. Quoting from the story,
Godlewski said his salt, packaged in containers bearing bright red crosses, has at least as much flavor and beneficial minerals as kosher salt - and it's for a good cause.
"The fact is, it helps Christians and Christian charities," he said. "This is about keeping Christianity in front of the public so that it doesn't die. I want to keep Christianity on the table, in the household, however I can do it."
A one-time Catholic who now holds Bible studies in his home, Godlewski is a longtime entrepreneur. In 1998, he founded a kielbasa sausage business now run by a nephew. In 2000, he introduced the Stretch & Catch, a fishing gizmo that he says was copied and buried by foreign competitors.
If the salt takes off, Godlewski plans an entire line of Christian-branded foods, including rye bread, bagels and pickles.

Frankly, I don't think salt or bread or pickles can be Christian or have anything to do with keeping the Christian faith strong in the hearts of people. This seems to be more of a marketing ploy than having anything to do with upholding Christianity.

How do you react to this? Would you buy salt just because it has been packaged with red crosses on the box? Have you seen any problems with using kosher salt? Has that affected your Christian faith in any way? Do you think we may end up with targeted products for all religious groups?

Thoughts Provoked From Old Movies

I am a fan of old movies. I do not classify myself as an expert on them because I tend not to pay attention to or know who the directors and producers are. Last week, I happened to watch two classic 1950's era movies: Witness For The Prosecution and Friendly Persuasion.

Witness is a courtroom drama starring Charles Laughton, Tyrone Power, and Marlene Dietrich. Power is on trial for murder; Laughton is his defense attorney; Dietrich is his wife, but she testifies for the prosecution. Hence the title of the movie.

In the pivotal scene as Dietrich takes the stand for the first time, the bailiff hands her a Bible on which to swear she is telling the truth. Before she takes the Bible, the bailiff instructs her to remove her gloves so she is holding the Bible in her bare hand.

That struck me. What difference would it have made if she kept on her gloves? Did folks believe that there was something magical about touching the Bible directly rather than through gloves? Was it supposed to show more honor for the Bible? Was it akin to those churches who ask that congregants stand when scripture texts are read to show proper reverence?

I don't know the answer to any of my speculations. What do you think?

Friendly Persuasion, starring Gary Cooper and Dorothy McGuire, tells the story of a Quaker family living in Southern Indiana during the Civil War. In one scene, as the Quakers gather for meeting, their time is interrupted by a Union Officer calling on them to take up weapons and prepare to fight.

This reminded me of the declaration sent by the Society of Friends in 1660 to King Charles II. Its prelude states:
Our Principle is, and our Practices have always been, to seek peace and ensue it, and to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of God, seeking the Good and Welfare, and doing that which tends to the peace of All. We know that Wars and Fightings proceed from the Lusts of men (as James 4: 1-3), out of which Lusts the Lord hath redeemed us, and so out of the Occasion of War. The Occasion of which War, and the War itself (wherein envious men, who are lovers of themselves more than lovers of God, lust, kill, & desire to have men’s lives or estates) ariseth from the lust. All bloody Principles & Practices we (as to our own particular) do utterly deny, with all outward Wars, and Strife, and Fightings with outward Weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever. And this is our Testimony to the whole World.

This was rather radical in 1660. It remained radical in the 1860's. These principles are still radical.

What do you think? Can a Christian live by this statement? Should a Christian do so?