Contemporary Theology: A Wide Spectrum with a Common Premise?

Julian, as an Anglican, and someone personally acquainted with Tom, since he was my Greek exegesis professor at Mcgill back in the 80s when he was still in Montreal, and he also preached at my wedding, I was interested in this video. It's very funny! I love Colbert, and it's cool to see Tom, who seems to have retained his sense of humour I remember well, through all the bishoping stuff which could kick the tar out of many people's senses of humour - another Lambeth coming up, don't envy him…

umm… so what was your question? not hearing anything radical here. As Tom points out, this theology is straight out of the NT.

These questions (resurrection of the body vs spiritual resurrection, eschatology) have been with Christianity for so long that would be quite more surprising to expect them to suddenly disappear. Imagine the fallout! Look at the current Episcopal rift that was brought about due to policy changes relative to homosexuals.

Also, I do not think that it is fair to say that this is the most sophisticated Christian theology.

I do understand your if you wish to problematicize this to spur further individual development among readers. Also, great site!

Thanks, I do not know what there is more to say…

Allow me to clarify myself: I'd like to contribute, but don't know what specifically to say.

Julian,

Interesting juxtaposition of perspectives!  I have an old high school friend who used to be a fan of N.T. Wright's work (he and his wife are actually now leaning more in the direction of Buddhism), so I'll be sure to ask him to check out this interview.

You asked about the need to retain the notion of God, comparing it to goblins and faeries.  One thing I think “God” stands for historically is a trans-human dimension of being – something that is well above and beyond human being, something that in some way underlies this amazing spectacle of creation.  As I've said in other conversations with you, I'm not a theist myself, but I believe something a theist might ask you is, “Is there anything in your vision of spirituality that is greater than, above, superior to human being?  Is there any One, any force, to whom or to which we can orient meaningfully as truly transcendent?  Or are we essentially the pinnacle of existence?”

Many people – I would say certainly most theists – feel a need to allow for a creative intelligence that is greater than the human mind, that is deeper and more profound than anything that appears to be allowed for in an atheistic/materialistic metaphysical cosmology.  They balk at the idea that the human mind is “it” – the highest singular intelligence ever to have existed.

I am not sure how long or convincingly I can “sustain” speaking from a hypothetical theist's perspective – hopefully a theist will respond to your blog – but I think I have framed at least one argument that a theist would probably make (for a number of reasons, psychological and philosophical).

Best wishes,

B.

After Balder's post, I'd like to say that it makes sense to retain the word “God” for Spirit in second person.That's already part of AQAL, as far as I understand, so I took this for granted.

well i think the great fear among the religious folks, and new-age folks, i've spoken to is that it reveals a kind of egocentricity and narcissism to see ourselves at the “pinnacle of existence”—-to see ourselves as the axis on which everything rotates. there's a preference to see ourselves as humble and obedient contributors to the rotation, but to assume that we ultimately have control is frightening and arrogant.

this gets very confusing because of course the notion of perfect control of the outer events of our lives (environmental factors over which we have no control) is ridiculous, but i think that's what many religious folks think a person is proposing when a more secular-humanist approach is suggested. it's a fine line, but to me, such a distinct and clear one—there seems to be not much emphasis on the idea that we, as accountable adults, take ownership of our own actions (and the perceptions which lead to those actions) and can assume that these actions will have consequences and effects, without assuming that we thereby think we can control everything. i've heard many new-age folks say, “it's so ignorant of us to think we're all that there is.” and you can actually discern where this notion comes from—many people have what feels like a transecendent sense of beauty that is in direct contrast with the squalor they see in life, and so, if one goes by that alone and doesn't trouble to search farther, it is easy to assume that heaven is “up there.” psychologically, i think that for many overwhelmed people throughout the centuries, the idea of heaven has simply been a tremendous resource. i've known plenty of people for whom the strict structure of religion provided something that allowed them to live relatively healthier lives and to make healthier choices—but again, i think it is often a fill-in for the structure they maybe did not receive developmentally. within a framework, their conscience is absolved and they can experience marginal freedom. it removes the psychological “negative introject” and allows people to enjoy themselves without fear of over-indulging (i've noticed the need for religion in many, many people who lack self-discipline and have a slightly dionysian streak.) but it is somehow terrifying for these people if it is suggested that it is they themselves who are exercising the power to abstain from harmful things, rather than the lord.

i hope i am making some sense. there's a personal reason people turn to religin which i seem to understand, but for some reason, on a larger scale, the reasons seem to elude me. i think there is a false humility which is honored in religion, something that is held up as virtue and surrender. i'm not sure where, culturally, this specific great fear that we will be narcissists if we begin to be accountable and self-aware comes in. i personally believe that such awareness leads to kindness and global concern for the wellfare of others, and away from narcissism. and i wonder if something as seemingly odd as a story (very odd, when you think about it) could spurn such collective terror of employing our own latent abilities to make decisions and think critically. i know that among many religious and new-age folk, atheists and even people who call themselves secular humanists are seen as the most cocky, arrogant, egocentric people there are. i think balder's right in that for the people i'm talking about, the assumption that we alone have the power to re-create is very scary.

Hi, Julian. Thanks for an enlightening and thought provoking post.

FYI, my reply is here:

http://joe-perez.com/2008/07/the-sentiment-of-belief-and-the-embodiment-of-god/

j—i agree with what you were saying about the irony of the idea that there is so much unseen narcissism within religion or new-age thinking. and i agree that the resource can and needs to be something altogether healthier and better. i am fascinated with the questions of why….both culturally and personally such a myth can take hold of a species so capable of rational thought. i understand we are capable of the opposite, but it surprises me that our capacity for rational thought could scare us so much, and that for many people it could threaten what they feel is their sense of wonder and beauty….but i think you addressed it well above in your response to balder, about projecting depth into non-sentient things.

and i've wondered that about green myself, and don't know whether it's sentimentality or a framework that green has adhered to that dictates “fairness” as in “live and let live.” i believe they may interpret this an attack on pre-rational people, and that even differentiation of any kind is an attack. there's a spectrum too of course—i think a lot of green is on the fence about what to really believe in a spiritual sense, but i know that an across-the-board thing seems to be to want to be “fair” to everyone. and perhaps this sort of lack-of-action thinking is fueled by an underlying fear of true acceptance of mortality…..as i write that seems to be making more sense to me.  

Hi Julian, not sure why anyone would think NT Wright is a good example of where Christian Theology is going, but you probably know he is one of the more conservative bishops in the worldwide communion. You want cutting edge? you'd need to look elsewhere…

when was the last shift in the common vernacular in reference to “religion,” or has there ever been one? i do think language is important, too. i realize how loosely i was using my own terminology above. i simple version of integralese would probably appeal to most people. i've noticed that i think one of the reasons germans find it easy to think critically is that there is often one word to represent an entire concept (i may have mentioned that before.)

by “most people” i mean, people interested in developing this kind of thing.

i have a feeling the word “consciousness” had a totally different connotation in the sixties than it does now….

yeah on the brain thing, i forget what it's called, but it's about your pre-existing structure that determines how you organize and internalize events (kalsched may have talked about it.) i know they've been able to map chemicals responsible for dissociation with mri's. i also know that traumatologists have noticed kids responding to trauma either by aggression and hypervigilance or mostly by dissociation, and i would guess the “brain type” you're referring to tends to dissociate. but i also think there's an artistic streak in there (in many people) with the obsessive/paranoid tendency.

Questions like: If the vast majority of the world have used and continue to use certain words (like “religion” and “god”) in specific ways, does it make sense to include these words in a contemporary, transrational Integral spirituality if we mean something entirely different by these and other words in common usage?

i don't think it does make sense no. however, sense may not be the objective of the exercise here. there are numerous possible motives for this - none of them in my opinion consistent with integrated wellness of the individual culture or nature. one may be invested psychologically in the rejection of differentiation and identification - in other words, logic. alternatively, truth may not be the primary objective of one's consideration. only rarely - say in mathematics and natural logic - is language capable of exactitude, but it is incumbent upon anyone wishing to discuss epistemological matters meaningfully, that they seek to maximise - appropriate to any particular context - the precision of their communication. definition of terms may be an infinite regress, and the cultural context within which a term is used may affects its collectively understood meaning, but this is no justification for a relativist flexicon motivated by psychological avoidance.

Might it not be more skillful to come up with more precise terminology that is not so easily confused with the ubiquitous otherworldly, mythic literalist formulations?

not just skillful, but more intellectually honest (actually, we could dispense with the word intellectual here - there is no other form of honesty or dishonesty, since only the intellect is capable of deciding to be dishonest). i would also question whether confusion (or at least vagueness of meaning) is considered undesirable by those using terms such as god: a word which can mean anything in particular can to the same extent mean nothing in particular, and usage of it thus stands to offend the smallest number of people. i see much avoidance of simple truth and honesty in the desire to protect peoples' feelings. however laudable the sentiment, such a policy inevitably worsens one's relationship to reality and prolongs suffering - in the form of resistance to what is - at best.

I wonder if this might be based in a pleasing and soothing  fallacy about all people really meaning the same thing but not realizing it - or that contained at the heart of all religions and concepts of god is actually the meaning that we would most like to interpret…

i think that this is at times the case, and considerably more often than advocates of such terms and concepts would like to admit (for the same obvious reasons of avoidance of unwanted emotions and conflict whether internal or external).

This is tricky stuff - especially if we look honestly at the bloody history of religious oppression and war, crusades, torture, terrorism, etc, etc.. I think we might still be prone to getting caught in a kind of “myth of the given” viz a vis there being a transcendent reference point for all of these varied interpretations of words like “god.”

given the preponderance of literalisation of theistic and “superagent” concepts worldwide, and the reality of whole populations overwhelmingly arrested at literal stages of consciousness and deeply uncritical metaphysical thinking through cultural transmission of inhibitory belief systems inimical to the free development of consciousness, i think it is disingenuous in the extreme for anyone seeking to promote higher and more integrated levels of consciousness to glibly use the same terms and language as literalists, in the service of some spurious kind of inclusiveness, whether methodologically pluralist or otherwise.

I wonder too if in buying into these sorts of fallacies we ignore the possibility that much of what has been called religion can be understoood as a kind of psychological defense mechanism

this would be my first swipe of the razor, and i suspect that further causes by way of explanation would not often be found wanting.

and that contemporary spirituality might be transcneding precisely that defense in the name of a more integrated and honest adult practice-based methodology.

i see little contemporary spirituality which does not merely substitute this particular flavour of epistemological rejection for another, but as a recommended general orientation, i agree wholeheartedly

For me the ideas of both “transcend and include” and “differentiate to integrate” are useful here. What are we transcending and what are we including? How do we differentiate transrational ideas from pretational ideas if we continue to us the same terminology? If sophisticated theologians, literalist believers and non-dual mystics the world over all use the same terms from different points of view might we not do better to find specific terminology for what we really mean - so as to be clear about what we don't reallly mean?

in principle i would say yes. however, again, inhibiting factors such as psychological repression and in-group inhibition might indicate that clarity of meaning is not actually the purpose, that clarity is to be considered a justifiable sacrifice against the greater “good” of a pretended commonality which in fact does not exist.

I wonder if this kind of exploration of the terms we use and what we do and don't mean might reveal that we are more sentimentally and superstitiously attached to prerational formulations of spirituality than we'd like to admit.

and afraid of conflict, disagreement, intellectual courage, and facing existential truth.

For me, contemporary transrational spirituality has to do with meditative expansion, mind-body integration, energetic initiation and dedicated development of the spiritual gifts of intellect, contemplation, intuitive creativity, embodied experience and the raw emotional honesty of our existential condition. It also has to do with applying scientific method a la the three modes of knowing and being in contact with a sense of genuine awe for the natural world and it's evolutionary process.

in other words, being deeply and truly alive to what is (?). we'll come back to the transrational thing later - for now, i think the phrase is as ill-advised as some of the terms which inspired this post, and for the same reasons - there are other agendas and contexts within which the accepted meaning of that term do not sit well with what i take to be your own understanding of it for example. (i would refer to the poll of definitions i conducted some time back).

While I know there are Integral formulations along the lines of ” god in the first, second and third person” that speak to this, I am not sure i am comfortable with that formulation given the history of the word “god” and it's definition in the minds of the vast majority of people. I also don't really find I have much use for terms that in common usage refer to a supernatural metaphysics that I find fantastical (indeed delusional)  and beside the point.

i concur completely. the term god is redundant at best in the real world. (apart from its delicious use as an expletive and an expression of ecstactic boundlessness during the sexual act ; )

This is the kind of philosophical positrion that makes the most sense to me -  Winston King on the existential nature of Buddhist ultimates…

i think a closer examination of that text would reveal some key instances of disagreement between what i understand your principles and ethos to be, and what i understand gotama buddha's to have been, especially in the area of emotional suffering and integration of disowned aspects of the self.

For me this link  returns us to what for me is the central function of spiritual practice as I allude to below…but maybe I am just too pragmatic!

as opposed to impractical? good!

Now of course this is Colbert doing his standard satirical humor, but check out Wright's ideas. Iis this the future of Christianity?

i don't see much difference between this and “serious” christianity in the actual content.

Is this contemporary mystic transrational religion? If not, how do we differentiate it from more Integral formulations?

or indeed, how do we differentiate those more integral formulations from more epistemologically accurate formulations?

For contrast, here is an intro to Ken Wilber's dialog with Brother David Steindl-Rast. This is of course much more sophisticated theology, and I don't want to donwplay the intelligence and beauty of the conversation

i don't think we should overplay the intelligence or beauty of it either, or give unqualified praise to sophistication in itself. spirit and god are glibly offered in wilber's first sentence as givens which are radically unqualifiable, and beyond any conceptions we can form of them. in line with the enquiry of this post, such unquantifiables and unidentifiables are neither necessary nor sufficient for a full, rich, and glorious apprehension of what it is to be alive, and are intellectually (and therefore morally) indefensible as far as i can see.

1) How long until a significant percentage of leading religious intellectuals - let alone ordinary believers - can think at this level?

this presupposes that this level of thinking is desirable. while i think the attainment of such a level of consciousness in itself is a tremendously admirable achievement, the content of the discourse betrays considerable weakness and pathology along critical lines of thinking.

i am reluctant to validate such thinking by suggesting that it is even a suitable waystation on wilber's suggested religious conveyor belt. in any case, i think that the monumental reframing exercise which is suggested behind the supposed commonality of non-meaning that you rightly question above, would - as you say - be strengthened considerably by the adoption of language which appears less designed to play to the gallery.

2) Even then, why is the attempt to perform all manner of mental gymnastics to somehow “reconcile” differing ideas that are all made-up make-believe stories in the first place even particularly important?

i think it is important chiefly because of the violence that it does to intellects and culture around the world. i think anyone who has even the tiniest inkling that not all rings true in such attempts at reconciliation should feel perfectly comfortable in voicing that awareness and enquiring further. this is not generally encouraged in cultures where myths are presented as givens (including the totality of the myth of the myth of the given).

Which leads to 3) Why is the concept of god any more necessary than the concept of goblins or forest spirits for the cultivation of a contemporary spirituality that includes deep contemplative practice, shadow work, and an attempt to reconcile inner and outer experience via applying rigorous scientific method to all three modes of knowing?

it is not. in fact i would say it is equally undesirable, since integration necessitates the deconstruction and removal of false conceptual defences against both feelings and facts.

(As in eye of flesh, eye of mind and eye of spirit.)

we can discuss wilber's fatally flawed application of the three strands another time ; )

How much do we need (a la Brother David) a fancy speculative story about an invisible creator that is both prior to and immanent in all of creation, or (a la Bishop Wright) a second-stage of post earthly heaven in which our bodies are resurrected any more than we need other mythic contructs about invisible worlds and immortal beings? What purpose do these serve?

about as much as we need emotional repression, relativism, and the idea that technology will solve everything for us and it'll all be alright.

as for purpose, i think you've alluded to several of the purposes above. and while pantheism may be slightly more justifiable than panentheism, both can be seen more justifiably as projections of conceptual creation - until and unless evidence confirming them and explaining evidence apparently to the contrary becomes available.

I know Brother David and Ken Wilber are trying to point at something transrational, and I am listening to the full interview and finding it to be poetic and fun - in fact even genuinely transrational in it's metaphorical passion. (In fact the more I listen while writing this, the more I realize that the interview is actually much less concerned with “god” than the introduction suggests…)

i have no idea how concerned with god the discussion is - i have no idea what they mean by it. do they? do they share the meaning? i'm dubious. in any case, there are limitless metaphorical riches to be mined in the imagination without recourse to such a transparently expedient concept as god.

But I can't help but wonder why we need to tie these kinds of intellectual/spiritual riffs to an invisible mythic  god?

we don't need to, and i wish more people would wonder about this.

Which perhaps raises the question: Is there an invisible god that is not mythic?

it's a charitable question, although the generosity required to raise it - once again - does get the old razor twitching. i'm open to evidence, and engaged in practise which should reveal as much of the invisible as is useful to my particular human endeavour. i'm not aware of any evidence to support that notion. is anyone else?

I am not sure. It's a sticky concept. Are we Integralites

hmmm - “we integralites”… there's another word of a thousand meanings, in a phrase of uncertain providence. tread carefully young icewalker ; )

how easily we suppose ourselves to be the opposite of that which we actually are (that's a general observation btw). i appreciate you haven't got it tattooed on your forehead (well not on the outside anyway ; ) but the umbrella known as integral theory itself seems to me to be something of a coopted haven for all sorts of contradictory and vague philosophical assertions to rub shoulders without needing to see eye to eye.

priviledging certain versions of the same unprovable metaphysical speculation because we like how they sound? Perhaps more essentially - are we trying to include something that we might do better to transcend?

i would say so

Do we really need speculative metaphysical spiritual beliefs?

metaphysical speculation - absolutely (metaphysics being a branch of philosophy in which the nature of reality is studied). adoption of speculation as belief in the absence of sufficient evidence? that way lies the abyss…
 
I know I don't. They simply are not particularly interesting to me.

i suspect you're less invested in avoiding pain than most. come to think of it, i'd rather have you as god than the one we're supposed to have. and when i've got over my procrastination a little more, i'd put myself up for the job as well. couldn't do much worse…

Personally, the above theologies might simply be the kind of fantastical  thoughts to notice in meditation and then drop in the interest of being present with what is, not important theological observations to embroider upon and offer as essential and sophistcated spiritual truths.

> breathes a deep sigh of agreement, and a silent hallelujah. if god weren't an option, what would you really have to feel?

MOYERS AND THE RAPTURISTS

too silly to comment upon. not to mention the impracticability of firing a remote server up after it's been melted by a apocalyptic volcano of hellfire. there may be some metaphorical value in the story though… ; ))))))

you finally got me out of the woodwork. you cad!

bruce - greetings and warmest regards from across the ocean.

I believe something a theist might ask you is, “Is there anything in your vision of spirituality that is greater than, above, superior to human being?  Is there any One, any force, to whom or to which we can orient meaningfully as truly transcendent?  Or are we essentially the pinnacle of existence?”

i don't see that such a choice is necessary bruce. we are part of existence - how can we be the pinnacle of it? if we're looking at complexity of nervous system, that accolade goes to dolphins and whales. i don't see why a force - or a personified or projected force - is required to see that we are of this universe, and that this universe is so much greater than us. transcendence is all around us - the process of life is inherently a process of transcendence. i do not think it arrogant or inappropriate for us to look around and see few other organisms as developed as we, and yet we are of what is.

i would point to the well-documented habit - enshrined in history and in many societies around the world -  of using the concept of god to elevate our position above that of our fellow man - as in god's chosen ones/people/side etc, in other words to enhance our self-importance. again, if stepping outside on a starry night doesn't give one a humbling sense of perspective, then god help you!

most theists feel a need to allow for a creative intelligence that is greater than the human mind

here, i would look to numerous less grand factors as explanation for that need, mainly to do with psychology and insufficiently critical thinking, especially as related to explanations of causality. personally i find that such an “allowance” (i think that's an overly generous interpretation of how many theists actually hold their belief) is not only unnecessary in apprehending the awe of being alive and knowing it, but it actually obscures some really mindblowing “what ifs” and wonderful flights of imagination around the cosmos at all scales. in other words, i find the superbeing narrative actually too small a story to do justice to what i can see in the night sky and all around me, either directly or with the scientific tools we have made to enhance our awareness of our universe, both external and internal

that is deeper and more profound than anything that appears to be allowed for in an atheistic/materialistic metaphysical cosmology

see my previous point - depth and profundity are not the sole province of believers in a creator. (btw, i've noticed a tendency of readiness on your part to label as materialistic or materialist those who do not hold with the notion of a creator or mysticism. i do not recall seeing you dispensing so lightly such uncharitable reductionism to those who are - shall we say - of a more pluralist disposition. to be clear, absence of belief in a creator or mysticism in general is not properly equatable with absence of a rich psychospiritual life, or a rich apprehension of existence and life itself. the term atheist is also subject to the caveats raised in this post. get my drift? i want to be friends - really).

in response to the psychological and philosophical reasons you allude to for theists to hold their beliefs, as with the idea that such beliefs enhance ones appreciation of a greater “intelligence”, i would simply say:

god is in the way.

as with all psychological defence mechanisms, theistic belief systems (yes, there is a presupposition there) are not a reflection on the value of the holder as an individual. i need to expand on this important point, but essentially, in contrast to what i see as some of the excesses of methodological pluralism, the intensity with which some belief systems are adhered to, or clung on to, is not justification for including them in proper consideration of the nature of reality. in other words, people may experience pain or resistance when their beliefs are challenged, but this does not make those beliefs any more admissible as statements of truth. i'm trying to point to the non-personal nature - in fact - of my grounds for not endorsing the notion of theism or the language which commonly accompanies it.

goodnight and good luck!

Hi Julian –

Have you ever read anything by Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong? I would provide a link but you could probably just google his name and find his newsletter.

He considers himself a nontheistic Christian and is referred to as an orange, rational-level believer in Wilber's Integral Spirituality.

And of course you're already familiar with Desmond Tutu. So with each of these men, you have two examples of post-conventional Christian thought.

Other post-conventional Christian thinkers / theologians:

Daniel Smith-Christopher
Joan Chittister
Megan McKenna
Richard Rohr
Beatrice Bruteau
Kathleen Norris
John O'Donohue
Cynthia Bourgeault
William Johnston
Gerald May
Raimondo Pannikar

….and there are many more!

Cheers,
Mary

Concerning Shelby Spong, I just received an autographed book gift in the mail from a fellow Gaian:  Jesus for the Non-Religious.  In it, Bishop Spong sort of takes a wrecking ball to mythic Christianity – no virgin birth, no birth in Bethleham (much less a star or angelic being), no literal miracles, no raising of the dead or literal resurrection, etc, etc.  He finds value in the mythic imagery and symbolism, of course – he does remain a Christian – but he topples every supernatural shred of the mythic form of the religion.

Quite some time ago Balder hipped me to this great little essay by Raimon Panikkar (I spelled his name wrong last time …) –

He approaches God by pointing to ways NOT to talk about God… and does so while incorporating passages from the Bible!

An example of post-rational “belief”, imo – and thinking that transcends yet includes the mythic.

In case you are interested, here is a passage from the book by Spong that I mentioned.  (I just typed it up when I should be preparing for classes tomorrow!  I need to turn this computer off… :-)  I typed it because I thought you might resonate with it in spirit.)

~*~
 

“The cross is not the place where the justice of God was satisfied in the suffering of the divine son.  The cross is the place where the fully alive one could give all that he is to others, and in that act make all that we mean by the word ‘God' visible.

Humanity in its fullness becomes endowed with the marks and the meaning of God.  Full humanity flows into the divine reality.  Divinity becomes and is the ultimate depth of humanity.  God is not some supernatural power over against the world or humanity.  The meaning and the reality of God are found in the experience of human wholeness flowing in life-giving ways through all that we are.  God is experienced when life is opened to transcendent otherness, when it is called beyond every barrier into an ever-expanding humanity.  The first-century experience of Jesus was quite simply that people met God in him.  “God was in Christ,” they said - and we say with them - because life, love, and being flowed through the fullness of his humanity.

Seen from that perspective, the cross is not a place of torture and death; it is the portrait of the love of God seen when one can give all that one is and all that one has away.  The cross thus becomes the symbol of a God presence that calls us to live, to love and to be.  It stands for a love that embraces the human diversity of race, tribe, nation, gender, sexual orientation, left-handedness, right-handedness and any other human variety found in life.  The call of the God experienced in Christ is simply a call to be all that each of us is - a call to offer, through the being of our humanity, the gift of God to all people by building a world in which everyone can live more fully, love more wastefully and have the courage to be all they can be.  That is how we live