Religions are frequently "internally conflicted" as to whether they should either "exclude" or "embrace." Often they attempt to do both at the same time. On the one hand they may insist upon not only their own historical particularity and metaphysical uniqueness, but also their paradigmatic decisiveness and ultimate finality.
At the same time, religions often attempt to embrace and include, to make room for others spiritual perspectives and cultural traditions, whether by assimilating them within their own symbolic and metaphysical framework, by appealing to some common universal principles and truths, or by accepting the idea that the Infinite Reality some people call "God" or "Creator" or "Spirit" or "Essence" or "The Self" or "Emptiness" or "The Ground of Being" or "Being-in-Relationship" encompasses the profound mystery of "creative paradox" and pluralistic integration. Integral pluralists affirm that "God is an ocean with many shores." Dualists choose to exclude. Universalists choose to embrace. And still others live in a dialectical tension or paradoxical relationship between these two polarities.
The dialectical tension between the human impulse to "exclude" and to "embrace can produce considerable "intra-psychic" and "inter-personal" conflicts, as well as "intra-religious" and "inter-religious" ones.
How do you attempt to reconcile within yourself and within your religion, ideology or spirituality the divergent impulses to exclude and to embrace?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Today's Cultural Mantra: "I'm Spiritual But Not Religious"
Have you noticed that in our contemporary "secular" society the word "spirituality" has been steadily displacing the word "religion" in popular culture. People (often unthinkingly) repeat the cultural mantra: "I'm spiritual but not religious."
For many people today this cultural mantra means: "Today in our liberal secular society we finally have a choose to say "no" to all forms of established religion, and I don't choose to subscribe to any single or exclusive historical religious tradition, (especially the western "theistic" religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam). I don't choose to subscribe to the external authority of any set of canonical scriptures, mythic narratives, historical truth-claims, doctrinal beliefs, community rituals, established clergy, institutional structures or political agendas (whether left or right)."
I think what many within the growing "spiritual but not religious" sub-culture are saying is, "What's left for me after the demise of traditional institutional religion is "the spirituality of no religion...and of all religions." I can appreciate the desire to find a "meaningful and personal spiritual path" but without the "baggage" of historical and institutional religion. I think we can see a search for "individuation" and "authenticity" at work here - two important modern secular cultural values.
Unless one is predisposed toward hostility toward all forms of the "spiritual but not religious" option, one cannot help but be impressed by the sheer imagination and creativity of those "contemporary spiritual seekers" who are putting their own globally eclectic forms of "spirituality" together by combining and integrating diverse elements not only of the world's religions (Shamanic, Vedic, Asian, and Abrahamic), but also of the full spectrum of university curriculum, including philosophy, history, literature, poetry, music, art, as whell as the physical, natural, cognitive and social sciences.
It seems to me that this shift toward the "spiritual but not (exclusively) religious" is almost inevitable for those today who live consciously in the modern (and post-modern) secular pluralist society and electronically connective emerging global civilization. There is no way to segregate the religions - either geographically or culturally - from each other any more. Their spiritual eco-systems are cross-pollinating each other as never before in human history. Conversation is continuous, and many people are looking for new possibilities to turn contraries into complements, to overcome ancient conflicts through creative dialog and mutual transformation.
Nor is there any way to segregate the knowledge of the world's religions from the other vital domains of human knowledge and experience. Religions have always been influenced and shaped by the surrounding cultural and social milieu, and this means that to some extent all religions are at least partially "syncretistic," picking up and integrating elements of the surrounding culture. In our modern age many of us in the western secular world take for granted the nearly universal access to general education, including the liberal arts and sciences. As millions of people are given the opportunity to study the humanities, arts, natural and social sciences, and to make this knowledge an integral part of their understanding of the world, any view of faith and religion that they may hold will likely be evaluated and scrutinized through the lenses of these intellectual and cultural domains.
One glaring fact that is often overlooked today is that modern public education - from elementary school through college - is overwhelmingly dominated by the assumptions and methodologies of an essentially closed naturalistic (anti-transcendent) world-view that rejects as incredible, archaic, irrelevant (and possibly immoral) any animistic, theistic or idealist world-view interpretation of the universe in which we live. This default stance of "philosophical naturalism" is part of the "hidden curriculum", to borrow Erik Erikson's phrase.
The contemporary "spiritual but not religious" movement is not unlike the 18th Century's Romanticism and Transcendentalism that reacted against the 17th Century's Deistic Rationalism and Scientific Positivism. There are strong affinities. Just as enlightenment secularism was a necessary reaction to oppressive forms of institutional religion, in the say way "the new spirituality" is a reaction to oppressive forms of secular materialism and nihilistic consumerism.
The "traditionally religious" - and those whose spiritual search has led them to return to more traditional and historic forms of religion - will view "the new spirituality" as itself empty and vacuous, solipsistic and narcissistic, making an idol of the autonomous self and the unhinged imagination. But this judgment, while no doubt exposing a real weakness of free-floating "spirituality without religion" - is probably too harsh.
Is it possible that the traditionally religious, the secular humanist, and the "spiritual but not religious" might actually learn something new about themselves and each other through attempting a critically reflective but deeply respectful and constructive dialog that avoids demonizing and stereotyping the other points of view? Probably, but such a dialog seems extremely difficult and even improbable in the culturally polarized climate in which we live today. What do you think?
For many people today this cultural mantra means: "Today in our liberal secular society we finally have a choose to say "no" to all forms of established religion, and I don't choose to subscribe to any single or exclusive historical religious tradition, (especially the western "theistic" religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam). I don't choose to subscribe to the external authority of any set of canonical scriptures, mythic narratives, historical truth-claims, doctrinal beliefs, community rituals, established clergy, institutional structures or political agendas (whether left or right)."
I think what many within the growing "spiritual but not religious" sub-culture are saying is, "What's left for me after the demise of traditional institutional religion is "the spirituality of no religion...and of all religions." I can appreciate the desire to find a "meaningful and personal spiritual path" but without the "baggage" of historical and institutional religion. I think we can see a search for "individuation" and "authenticity" at work here - two important modern secular cultural values.
Unless one is predisposed toward hostility toward all forms of the "spiritual but not religious" option, one cannot help but be impressed by the sheer imagination and creativity of those "contemporary spiritual seekers" who are putting their own globally eclectic forms of "spirituality" together by combining and integrating diverse elements not only of the world's religions (Shamanic, Vedic, Asian, and Abrahamic), but also of the full spectrum of university curriculum, including philosophy, history, literature, poetry, music, art, as whell as the physical, natural, cognitive and social sciences.
It seems to me that this shift toward the "spiritual but not (exclusively) religious" is almost inevitable for those today who live consciously in the modern (and post-modern) secular pluralist society and electronically connective emerging global civilization. There is no way to segregate the religions - either geographically or culturally - from each other any more. Their spiritual eco-systems are cross-pollinating each other as never before in human history. Conversation is continuous, and many people are looking for new possibilities to turn contraries into complements, to overcome ancient conflicts through creative dialog and mutual transformation.
Nor is there any way to segregate the knowledge of the world's religions from the other vital domains of human knowledge and experience. Religions have always been influenced and shaped by the surrounding cultural and social milieu, and this means that to some extent all religions are at least partially "syncretistic," picking up and integrating elements of the surrounding culture. In our modern age many of us in the western secular world take for granted the nearly universal access to general education, including the liberal arts and sciences. As millions of people are given the opportunity to study the humanities, arts, natural and social sciences, and to make this knowledge an integral part of their understanding of the world, any view of faith and religion that they may hold will likely be evaluated and scrutinized through the lenses of these intellectual and cultural domains.
One glaring fact that is often overlooked today is that modern public education - from elementary school through college - is overwhelmingly dominated by the assumptions and methodologies of an essentially closed naturalistic (anti-transcendent) world-view that rejects as incredible, archaic, irrelevant (and possibly immoral) any animistic, theistic or idealist world-view interpretation of the universe in which we live. This default stance of "philosophical naturalism" is part of the "hidden curriculum", to borrow Erik Erikson's phrase.
The contemporary "spiritual but not religious" movement is not unlike the 18th Century's Romanticism and Transcendentalism that reacted against the 17th Century's Deistic Rationalism and Scientific Positivism. There are strong affinities. Just as enlightenment secularism was a necessary reaction to oppressive forms of institutional religion, in the say way "the new spirituality" is a reaction to oppressive forms of secular materialism and nihilistic consumerism.
The "traditionally religious" - and those whose spiritual search has led them to return to more traditional and historic forms of religion - will view "the new spirituality" as itself empty and vacuous, solipsistic and narcissistic, making an idol of the autonomous self and the unhinged imagination. But this judgment, while no doubt exposing a real weakness of free-floating "spirituality without religion" - is probably too harsh.
Is it possible that the traditionally religious, the secular humanist, and the "spiritual but not religious" might actually learn something new about themselves and each other through attempting a critically reflective but deeply respectful and constructive dialog that avoids demonizing and stereotyping the other points of view? Probably, but such a dialog seems extremely difficult and even improbable in the culturally polarized climate in which we live today. What do you think?
Monday, January 21, 2008
Jesus Christ - The Eternal Revolutionary
WHAT IF the real purpose of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth was NOT to establish a sectarian "holy club," a middle-class "country club," or a rich and powerful religious institution?
WHAT IF he came to demonstrate and proclaim the "kingdom" (or commonwealth) of God's unlimited love for all humanity and the whole creation?
WHAT IF the honorary title "Christ" or "Anointed One" rests uniquely and even decisively (and paradigmatically) but not exhaustively and exclusively upon the Spirit-filled man we know as Jesus of Nazareth?
WHAT IF the word "Christ" is a symbol of the "divine logos" that is continuously at work luring the emergent creation toward the progessive fulfillment and ultimate consummation of God's creative and redemptive purposes?
WHAT IF the radical ministry of Jesus was centered in opening the human heart to the non-coercive power of God's creative, liberating and transforming love?
Is "Jesus, the Christ" the exclusive religious and cultural franchise of Christians, or is he more like Bonhoeffer's idea of "the man for others?" Is he essentially the founder of another parochial religion or is he more like Thomas Beckett: "a man for all seasons?"
Is Jesus one more cranky religious sectarian announcing the end of the world, or does his life and message embody something transcendent and universal, a wideness and depth of divine love, mercy, goodness and compassion that reaches out in promise and hope in profligate extravagance to one and all, including the "lost ones" whom polite society regards as scandalous, inferior, worthless and expendable?
Raimon Panikkar writes about "the Unknown Christ of Hinduism." Could there also be "an Unknown Christ of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism?" "Of Shamanism, Judaism and Islam?" You get the idea. And isn't the ultimate "mystery" of God's inscrutable essence a universal tenet of all the world's religions, even those that paradoxically proclaim the Word of divine revelation? The Eastern Orthodox tradition speaks of the eternal mystery of God's essence, but the revelation of the divine energies - of perfect beauty, goodness, wisdom and love.
WHAT IF the Universal Divine Spirit, the Cosmic Christ that was so powerfully present in the unique life and ministry of Jesus, is at work in the hearts and minds of millions of people from many different spiritual and contemplative traditions? Can we have uniqueness without exclusivity?
WHAT IF the world's spiritual traditions are not ultimately either identical or contradictory but rather complementary and corrective to one another? Where does the revelation (or self-disclosure) of God as transcendent, relational and immanent love for all humanity and the whole creation fit into all this?
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE whether the Great Mystery in which (whom) "we live and move and have our being is" friendly, hostile or utterly indifferent to our highest and noblest human hopes, longings, dreams and aspirations?
Well, it's quite a kettle of fish to cook up for one afternoon! What do you think?
WHAT IF he came to demonstrate and proclaim the "kingdom" (or commonwealth) of God's unlimited love for all humanity and the whole creation?
WHAT IF the honorary title "Christ" or "Anointed One" rests uniquely and even decisively (and paradigmatically) but not exhaustively and exclusively upon the Spirit-filled man we know as Jesus of Nazareth?
WHAT IF the word "Christ" is a symbol of the "divine logos" that is continuously at work luring the emergent creation toward the progessive fulfillment and ultimate consummation of God's creative and redemptive purposes?
WHAT IF the radical ministry of Jesus was centered in opening the human heart to the non-coercive power of God's creative, liberating and transforming love?
Is "Jesus, the Christ" the exclusive religious and cultural franchise of Christians, or is he more like Bonhoeffer's idea of "the man for others?" Is he essentially the founder of another parochial religion or is he more like Thomas Beckett: "a man for all seasons?"
Is Jesus one more cranky religious sectarian announcing the end of the world, or does his life and message embody something transcendent and universal, a wideness and depth of divine love, mercy, goodness and compassion that reaches out in promise and hope in profligate extravagance to one and all, including the "lost ones" whom polite society regards as scandalous, inferior, worthless and expendable?
Raimon Panikkar writes about "the Unknown Christ of Hinduism." Could there also be "an Unknown Christ of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism?" "Of Shamanism, Judaism and Islam?" You get the idea. And isn't the ultimate "mystery" of God's inscrutable essence a universal tenet of all the world's religions, even those that paradoxically proclaim the Word of divine revelation? The Eastern Orthodox tradition speaks of the eternal mystery of God's essence, but the revelation of the divine energies - of perfect beauty, goodness, wisdom and love.
WHAT IF the Universal Divine Spirit, the Cosmic Christ that was so powerfully present in the unique life and ministry of Jesus, is at work in the hearts and minds of millions of people from many different spiritual and contemplative traditions? Can we have uniqueness without exclusivity?
WHAT IF the world's spiritual traditions are not ultimately either identical or contradictory but rather complementary and corrective to one another? Where does the revelation (or self-disclosure) of God as transcendent, relational and immanent love for all humanity and the whole creation fit into all this?
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE whether the Great Mystery in which (whom) "we live and move and have our being is" friendly, hostile or utterly indifferent to our highest and noblest human hopes, longings, dreams and aspirations?
Well, it's quite a kettle of fish to cook up for one afternoon! What do you think?
The Search for Core Values
We have learned today that healthy organizations are clear about their mission purpose and core values. The same can be said of individuals. We have identified eight core values that we believe are vital to creative human development in today's changing society and world. There are:
1. Spiritual Growth
2. Personal Wholeness
3. Healthy Relationships
4. Cultural Literacy
5. Creative Imagination
6. Vocational Purpose
7. Social Responsibility
8. Servant Leadership
How would you describe your core values? How do your core values give shape, meaning, direction and fulfillment to your way of living? Which values do you want to cultivate more fully? How are you doing this? What does it mean to "make a life, not just a living." What does it mean to integrate one's values into a conscious, creative, courageous and compassionate way of living?
Why do so many people live "unconscious" and "aimless" lives? Why do so many Americans think the pursuit of pleasure and power exhausts the meaning of life? How does living in a mass media entertainment and commercial advertising society automatically pre-condition and shape our values for us? How does one break free of the unconscious collective, the corporate consumerist cultural "matrix" to become a more aware, innovative, creative and authentic person?
1. Spiritual Growth
2. Personal Wholeness
3. Healthy Relationships
4. Cultural Literacy
5. Creative Imagination
6. Vocational Purpose
7. Social Responsibility
8. Servant Leadership
How would you describe your core values? How do your core values give shape, meaning, direction and fulfillment to your way of living? Which values do you want to cultivate more fully? How are you doing this? What does it mean to "make a life, not just a living." What does it mean to integrate one's values into a conscious, creative, courageous and compassionate way of living?
Why do so many people live "unconscious" and "aimless" lives? Why do so many Americans think the pursuit of pleasure and power exhausts the meaning of life? How does living in a mass media entertainment and commercial advertising society automatically pre-condition and shape our values for us? How does one break free of the unconscious collective, the corporate consumerist cultural "matrix" to become a more aware, innovative, creative and authentic person?
Our Mission Purpose
"Omega House is an ecumenical and interfaith campus ministry and study center at Southern Oregon University. We assist university students and adult learners to integrate their beliefs, values, knowledge and experience into a meaningful world-view and creative way of living in today's changing society and world."
Some Questions for Comment:
What do you think it means to "integrate one's beliefs, values, knowledge and experience into a meaningful world-view and creative way of living in today's changing society and world?"
What would you say is involved in cultivating a meaningful world-view and creative way of living? Why does it matter?
What do you see as the crucial challenges and opportunities of living in today's changing society and world?
Some Questions for Comment:
What do you think it means to "integrate one's beliefs, values, knowledge and experience into a meaningful world-view and creative way of living in today's changing society and world?"
What would you say is involved in cultivating a meaningful world-view and creative way of living? Why does it matter?
What do you see as the crucial challenges and opportunities of living in today's changing society and world?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
