This is the second post in a series about Unity and Re-claiming the Christian heritage. In this post I'd like to focus particularly on Christology and Soteriology, or who Jesus is and his role in the process of salvation/liberation.
First of all, I should state up front that there are many Jesus' to be found out there - the variety of portraits of Jesus found in biblical scholarship, Christian theology, church worship and liturgy, and even other religions (recall, for instance, the important and revered role of Jesus as prophet in Islam). Here I'm combining my understanding of biblical studies and Christian theological discourse and history to forward a way to bridge "traditional" approaches to Jesus and salvation with Unity. Or more accurately, I'm trying to forge a way to integrate certain mainline/traditional theological doctrine into a Unity context.
Throughout Church history there have been several different models of understanding who Jesus is. The earliest Christians articulated the following confession: "Iesou Christou Theou Yion Soter -- Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior." Jesus, for them, held the title "Christ" or "Messiah," which means "the annointed one" of God's establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth. He was also "Son of God," which was a title also often applied to the Roman Emperors. In these early Christian communities, Jesus was seen as God's special Son sent to inaugurate reconciliation with God and redemption. And this liberating, transformative role also speaks to his role as Savior or healer of the individual soul, humanity, and all creation.
Now, there were several early Christian groups who understood Jesus rather differently from one another. For instance, there were the Ebionites, or Judean Christians, who saw him as only human, but still regarded him as the greatest rabbi and prophet who was the Messiah/Christ ushering in God's new Kingdom or rule on Earth. On the other side of the spectrum were Docetic Christians (from "dokeo" meaning "to seem or appear") who asserted that Jesus on appeared human but was, in reality, totally and solely divine or God. And then there were various shades and combinations in between on the spectrum. The eventual "orthodox" perspective claims that Jesus was and is 100% human and 100% divine, totally human and totally God (adds up to 200%, I know, but this is not math but faith experience and reflection). This "fully human, fully God" view has been affirmed by the Fillmores and Unity leaders throughout the years, but then adds that we are like Jesus in this way. We are different from Jesus only by degree or perhaps office/role but not in kind or species.
The central element that I believe Unity has lost or is in the process of losing is the discipleship and devotional elements in regard to Jesus. In normative Unity, especially in Charles Fillmore's writings, Jesus is affirmed as our way-shower, elder brother, and/or great example. I'm wanting to kick this up a notch and show how more explicitly discipleship and devotional understandings of Jesus make sense in Unity and can be brought in to our theological understanding. Concerning discipleship, this involves following Jesus' way of living, the manner of his relationships, the transformative content of his teachings, and learning from his death and resurrection what sacrifice for truth and liberation means. Being a disciple of Jesus simply means claiming Jesus as a/the central figure whose life is worthy of complete emulation due to his transparency to God.
Concerning devotion, this is a bit more controversial in Unity. This is because most Unity folks make a significant distinction between the religion of Jesus and the religion about Jesus, or faith of Jesus versus the faith in Jesus. Many Unity people have given up on the belief that Jesus saves or liberates by virtue of some sacrificial atonement or penal substitution. Well, quite frankly, I count myself in among them. However, this doesn't mean that we must completely discard or discredit faith in Jesus. In redefining and clarifying what this means, faith in Jesus involves embracing the faith of Jesus. There is a devotional tenor here. Devoting our spiritual intention, attention, and energy to aligning our thoughts, words, and actions with the pattern of God's disclosure and expression in and through Jesus' whole life. If he, as is widely asserted in Unity, is the one who has most fully manifested his Christ nature, then it would make perfect sense to put trusting acceptance (faith) in his whole personhood (his teachings, way of life, mindset, relationality, etc.) that fully reveal who and what God is. We may devote our spiritual life and growth to Jesus, looking to his example and thus guidance, and give him thanks in gratefulness for his God-consciousness. And when we devote ourselves this way to Jesus, we become further inspired, awakened, enlightened, and transformed by the impact our relationship with his life has on us. And this is not simply a literary relationship but a dynamic, living relationship with Christ Jesus (the "ascended Jesus," as Charles Fillmore puts it) who is still living in and among us and is available when we call on him in consciousness, in prayer and meditation or in other contemplative practices.
In "traditional" Christianity there has been essentially four distinct soteriological views concerning Jesus. There are four ways of understanding the role of Jesus in the process of liberation or salvation from the human condition, which is sin, "missing the mark," or a sense of estrangement/alienation/separation from God (in Unity this is normally understood to be estrangement from God in consciousness, since we are always one with God).
The first soteriology is often called "Christus Victor." This the belief that Jesus the Christ, in his life, death, and resurrection, has defeated the devil or Satan (however understood) in some kind of cosmic battle. His victory has liberated humanity from the bondage to sin that the devil/Satan has had over us. This particular perspective was very popular in the first few centuries of the early Church and was revived again in the 20th century in the theological work of Gustav Aulen.
Another view may be called "penal substitution." This was most influentially articulated in the 12th century by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury. This has become the dominant understanding of salvation in Protestantism and Catholicism in the West. The idea here is that all humans owe all possible honor and obedience to God. Through the sin of Adam and Eve, all of humanity has incurred an infinite debt and dishonor to God who is infinite. However, as we are finite creatures, we cannot possibly fulfill this debt. Only God, who is infinite and eternal, can satisfy this debt. Thus, only a being who is both human and God could right this wrong. Enter Jesus Christ, who is understood to be the God-man who took on the punishment that humans deserved and fulfilled the debt obligation to God since he is fully divine. On this view, Jesus accomplishes salvation for humanity by reconciling us to God.
One view of salvation that holds importance in Eastern Orthodox Christianity is what may be termed theosis, or divination. That is, when the eternal Logos/Word became human as Jesus Christ, the human and divine natures were completely united, allowing for the cleansing or purification of humanity through identification with Jesus. By virtue of personal, mystical union with Jesus, the Christian is transformed into greater likeness of him - human and divine. The meaning is often stated: We become by grace what God is by nature. And this is accomplished through conscious identification with Jesus.
The final view is the one most normatively understood in Unity circles. I term it inspirational influence; others call it moral influence theory. This was first explicated most comprehensively by medieval scholastic Peter Abelard. This is essentially the outlook that when the Christian encounters the life of Jesus in scripture and prayer, s/he is inspired, enlightened, transformed in mind, body, and spirit. Jesus' entire life profoundly impacts and influences the person into greater experience and expression of God's Love.
The last two - theosis and inspirational influence - I believe are able to be integrated into a Unity Christian soteriology that, if explained in New Thought language, would be tenable for many or most Unity folks. I like to state it this way: Jesus, as the pinnacle demonstrator of the Christ Spirit within all, reveals and discloses who/what God is for humanity. Most of the time we don't live out our true nature as the Christ/image of God, and so we need a concrete human exemplar that demonstrates the fullness of human potential that we rarely, if ever, witness -- Jesus. Aligning ourselves with and following Jesus (the identification of theosis) as the perfect pattern of human life totally transparent to God and completely imbued with God's Spirit brings liberating, transforming, and "saving" experience. That is, Jesus saves by showing and offering us his life, which allows liberation from a sense of estrangement from God and others and liberation into an awareness and experience of God's immediate presence of Love and Wisdom.
Through this union of traditional teaching and New Thought re-interpretation, I believe it is definitely possible and, indeed, spiritually important to bring Jesus back into the center of the Unity movement. While not everyone will agree with this viewpoint, I think it's one that is viable for the movement, one that not only puts us back in touch with the roots of Unity but also moves us forward into new ways of re-claiming and finding transformational import in and through the most influential spiritual individual person in history.
I look forward to further dialogue and conversation about Jesus and new ways to re-claim him for Unity in the 21st century. Peace!
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Blog-Series on Reclaiming Unity's Christian Roots
There has been an ongoing conversation lately (and it's oftentimes been experienced as outright debate) within the Unity movement concerning the extent to which (or whether or not) this denomination is Christian. Myself a ministerial candidate coming from a perspective within Unity, I've witnessed quite a few changes occurring that are affiliated with this issue. In 2009 Unity World Headquarters and Unity Worldwide Ministries launched a branding research study which suggested that in order to appeal to certain sections of the population who share normative Unity values (inclusivity, progressive spirituality, individuality, etc.), the movement would do well to exclude language about "church," "Jesus," "Christ," "Christianity," "Bible," etc. and instead use language such as "spiritual community," "positive path," and other generic terms. Along with this branding element has been name changing - Unity School of Christianity is now Unity World Headquarters and the Association of Unity Churches is now Unity Worldwide Ministries (note the withdrawal of "Christianity" and "Churches" from both titles). Also, over the past few decades there has been an influx of the New Age movement influencing Unity individuals, churches, and publications, which has moved some sectors of Unity away from more obvious Christian language, ideas, and themes.
All of this seems to me and other ministers, leaders, and students I've spoken with to be evidence of Unity moving away from an explicit Christian identity. And yet, within Unity Institute and Seminary's curricula (the seminary that trains Unity ministers), Unity churches/centers/communities, Silent Unity (the 24-hr Unity prayer ministry), and much published material, Unity nonetheless retains some language that is historically and theologically Christian in many ways. The language of "Christ within," "Jesus our way-shower," "Bible our guidebook," etc. is still quite indicative of a Christian-influenced tradition, not to mention the fact that we meet on Sunday mornings, the sermon/talk is the center of the service, and often use an order of service that comes straight out of Christian (esp. Protestant) worship. In addition, Charles and Myrtle Fillmore, the co-founders of Unity, employed quite explicitly Christian language, terminology, and themes, although with rather free and open re-interpretation. All of this is to say that there is some tension, perhaps straight-up controversy, over whether or not Unity is or should be considered Christian or part of Christianity.
Since this topic of religious identity is an important and intriguing one, as well as being one in which I'm deeply invested as a Unity theologian and minister-in-training, I'm developing a short series of blog-posts dedicated to this issue. I wish to state up front that I consider myself first and foremost a Christian, albeit a rather theologically liberal, pluralistic, and interfaith-minded Christian. I'm a Christian who is part of the Unity movement as a denominational affiliation and community of spiritual fellowship. As such, I come to this issue with a definite Christian perspective and identity. Thus, a sizable part of me would like to see Unity retain, embrace, and promote the elements of our Christian heritage. On the other hand, another part of me would like Unity to be able to remain a progressive, open-minded, interfaith-oriented inclusive denomination that welcomes people wherever they are on their respective spiritual journeys. Are both possible? If so, what might that look like within the movement theologically and in practice? Could Unity somehow both retain a Christian identity throughout the movement and yet be open, receptive, and inclusive of other religious traditions, spiritual practices, the New Age, new philosophical systems, etc.?
I think this is totally possible and feasible, so I'm going to take the rest of the space here to define what I mean by Christian and Christianity in such a way that is in integrity with the wider Christian tradition and would be acceptable, I think, to a majority of Unity and New Thought people. The rest of the series will entail posts about 1) Jesus and soteriology (the meaning and how of "salvation"), 2) ways forward in God-talk or (in Unity language) metaphysics about God, 3) possible new ways of "doing church" (with cues from the Emerging Church), and 4) the spiritual-transformative benefits of re-claiming certain traditional Christian teachings/doctrines.
So, my understanding of what it means to be Christian is pretty straight-forward and can be applied to individuals and communities of fellowship (churches, centers, organizations, etc.). I'm influenced by a range of liberal Christian theologians like Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, Tillich, Cobb, and, one of my past teachers at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Radford-Reuther when I say that being a Christian must involve Jesus somehow. Without the historical and/or literary presence of this person and his impactful spiritual-social influence on people's lives we wouldn't even have Christianity. (Sidenote: I know there are those in historical Jesus research like J.G. Frazer, G.A. Wells, and more recently Robert Price, who deny a real historical Jesus even existed. Though I take the position of most N.T. scholars that there most likely was a "Jesus of history," even if there wasn't I think the narrative-symbolic impact of Jesus' life, teachings, death, and resurrection have been enough to make his presence unique, remarkable, and central to any understanding of what Christianity is.) Therefore, for something to be called "Christian" means that Jesus is not only present but somehow significant.
Jesus has always been a centerpiece in Unity teaching, beginning with Charles Fillmore who made a statement that was, until recently, printed in Unity Magazine: "Unity is a link in the great educational movement inaugurated by Jesus Christ..." He even pulled Unity out of the International New Thought Alliance because he didn't think they were Christian enough - i.e. stressing the Bible, Jesus, and link with Christianity. Jesus has also been a key piece of the writings of other Unity leaders throughout the years, including L. Fillmore, H.E. Cady, J.D. Freeman, E. Butterworth, P.A. Laughlin, and T. Shepherd. Not only have most Unity leaders and writers included and placed importance on Jesus, most have emphasized that, following the Fillmores, Unity is a Christian religious system, albeit interpreted and lived out differently from the mainstream of Christianities. The teachings on God, Jesus, salvation/liberation, in Unity are understood in a different way (we'll get to some of that in later postings).
Ok, here is my definition of Christianity that I think would be palatable for most people both within Unity churches and in more "traditional" Christian churches: To be Christian is to be a follower of Jesus Christ, such that his life (teachings, actions, death, and resurrection) is spiritually guiding, influential, and thus edifying and transformative in the life of individuals or communities. Christian applies to any person or group of people who takes the person of Jesus seriously and who finds spiritual meaning, value, and personal growth from encountering his life.
I offer this to the public for comment, questioning, critique, and augmentation. It can be grasped and applied in different ways, depending on the particular individual and community, but I forward it as an ecumenical understanding of Christian identity. Hopefully, this can start a conversation that continues the dialogue about Unity and Christian identity. That's it for now. Peace.
All of this seems to me and other ministers, leaders, and students I've spoken with to be evidence of Unity moving away from an explicit Christian identity. And yet, within Unity Institute and Seminary's curricula (the seminary that trains Unity ministers), Unity churches/centers/communities, Silent Unity (the 24-hr Unity prayer ministry), and much published material, Unity nonetheless retains some language that is historically and theologically Christian in many ways. The language of "Christ within," "Jesus our way-shower," "Bible our guidebook," etc. is still quite indicative of a Christian-influenced tradition, not to mention the fact that we meet on Sunday mornings, the sermon/talk is the center of the service, and often use an order of service that comes straight out of Christian (esp. Protestant) worship. In addition, Charles and Myrtle Fillmore, the co-founders of Unity, employed quite explicitly Christian language, terminology, and themes, although with rather free and open re-interpretation. All of this is to say that there is some tension, perhaps straight-up controversy, over whether or not Unity is or should be considered Christian or part of Christianity.
Since this topic of religious identity is an important and intriguing one, as well as being one in which I'm deeply invested as a Unity theologian and minister-in-training, I'm developing a short series of blog-posts dedicated to this issue. I wish to state up front that I consider myself first and foremost a Christian, albeit a rather theologically liberal, pluralistic, and interfaith-minded Christian. I'm a Christian who is part of the Unity movement as a denominational affiliation and community of spiritual fellowship. As such, I come to this issue with a definite Christian perspective and identity. Thus, a sizable part of me would like to see Unity retain, embrace, and promote the elements of our Christian heritage. On the other hand, another part of me would like Unity to be able to remain a progressive, open-minded, interfaith-oriented inclusive denomination that welcomes people wherever they are on their respective spiritual journeys. Are both possible? If so, what might that look like within the movement theologically and in practice? Could Unity somehow both retain a Christian identity throughout the movement and yet be open, receptive, and inclusive of other religious traditions, spiritual practices, the New Age, new philosophical systems, etc.?
I think this is totally possible and feasible, so I'm going to take the rest of the space here to define what I mean by Christian and Christianity in such a way that is in integrity with the wider Christian tradition and would be acceptable, I think, to a majority of Unity and New Thought people. The rest of the series will entail posts about 1) Jesus and soteriology (the meaning and how of "salvation"), 2) ways forward in God-talk or (in Unity language) metaphysics about God, 3) possible new ways of "doing church" (with cues from the Emerging Church), and 4) the spiritual-transformative benefits of re-claiming certain traditional Christian teachings/doctrines.
So, my understanding of what it means to be Christian is pretty straight-forward and can be applied to individuals and communities of fellowship (churches, centers, organizations, etc.). I'm influenced by a range of liberal Christian theologians like Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, Tillich, Cobb, and, one of my past teachers at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Radford-Reuther when I say that being a Christian must involve Jesus somehow. Without the historical and/or literary presence of this person and his impactful spiritual-social influence on people's lives we wouldn't even have Christianity. (Sidenote: I know there are those in historical Jesus research like J.G. Frazer, G.A. Wells, and more recently Robert Price, who deny a real historical Jesus even existed. Though I take the position of most N.T. scholars that there most likely was a "Jesus of history," even if there wasn't I think the narrative-symbolic impact of Jesus' life, teachings, death, and resurrection have been enough to make his presence unique, remarkable, and central to any understanding of what Christianity is.) Therefore, for something to be called "Christian" means that Jesus is not only present but somehow significant.
Jesus has always been a centerpiece in Unity teaching, beginning with Charles Fillmore who made a statement that was, until recently, printed in Unity Magazine: "Unity is a link in the great educational movement inaugurated by Jesus Christ..." He even pulled Unity out of the International New Thought Alliance because he didn't think they were Christian enough - i.e. stressing the Bible, Jesus, and link with Christianity. Jesus has also been a key piece of the writings of other Unity leaders throughout the years, including L. Fillmore, H.E. Cady, J.D. Freeman, E. Butterworth, P.A. Laughlin, and T. Shepherd. Not only have most Unity leaders and writers included and placed importance on Jesus, most have emphasized that, following the Fillmores, Unity is a Christian religious system, albeit interpreted and lived out differently from the mainstream of Christianities. The teachings on God, Jesus, salvation/liberation, in Unity are understood in a different way (we'll get to some of that in later postings).
Ok, here is my definition of Christianity that I think would be palatable for most people both within Unity churches and in more "traditional" Christian churches: To be Christian is to be a follower of Jesus Christ, such that his life (teachings, actions, death, and resurrection) is spiritually guiding, influential, and thus edifying and transformative in the life of individuals or communities. Christian applies to any person or group of people who takes the person of Jesus seriously and who finds spiritual meaning, value, and personal growth from encountering his life.
I offer this to the public for comment, questioning, critique, and augmentation. It can be grasped and applied in different ways, depending on the particular individual and community, but I forward it as an ecumenical understanding of Christian identity. Hopefully, this can start a conversation that continues the dialogue about Unity and Christian identity. That's it for now. Peace.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Multiple Religious Belonging -- Possible?
Wow, so it's been a long time since I've posted on this blog. Indeed, I've been swamped with the rigors and time constraints of dissertation writing. And some may be happy to know that I'm finally on the last chapter and almost halfway done with it! It'll definitely be complete by the end of July.
Anyway, as I've been diligently working on my last chapter concerned with Buddhist-Christian dialogue and transformation, there has been one particular issue that, while extremely engaging, isn't something I'm prepared to tackle in the diss itself: multiple religious belonging. That is, during my investigations into people's expressions of how they have learned from other religious traditions and how other religions have influenced their self-understanding as a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or whatever, what I've found is that quite a few (especially Christians in the Buddhist-Christian encounters) have described themselves as having been so impacted that they "belong" not only to one tradition but, to some extent, the other tradition as well.
This raises about a million questions: What is meant by "belonging? Is it even possible to truly or honestly claim to be both Christian and Buddhist or some other combination? And how could a situation like this not lead to a kind of misappropriation or misuse of one or more religions or lead to a dispelling of the distinct uniqueness of each tradition? Nonetheless, I want to suggest a different linguistic universe to discuss this and how it might be possible to genuinely and authentically make this kind of claim while not denigrating the richness and uniqueness of any religion or heritage.
Before giving my own basic understanding of the issue, I want to mention that there is a growing amount of scholarship on this very theme. See Many Mansions: Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity (Wipf & Stock, 2002), which is edited by Catherine Cornille and offers a number of Christian perspectives on the complexities of the problems that come with this topic. Also see the academic articles Peter C. Phan, "Multiple Religious Belonging: Opportunities and Challenges for Theology and Church," Theological Studies (2003), which argues for the possibility for multiple religious belonging through an "inclusive pluralism," and Gideon Goosen, "An Empirical Study of Dual Religious Belonging," Journal for Empirical Theology (2007), which presents a rather convincing case that such a phenomenon does, in fact, exist in the world.
My own understanding has been influenced significantly by a German theologian and scholar of religion teaching at the University of Muenster -- Perry Schmidt-Leukel. His work sets out the possibility of multiple religious belonging grounded in an interpretation of religion and religious experience as fundamentally and primarily (though not exclusively) individual. This means that, while we are communal, social beings, our "religiosity" is basically a personal, individual issue. Along with this claim, he maintains a re-conceptualization of the language used to speak of this issue. Rather than speaking of "multiple religious belonging," which suggests that religions are these static, unchanging, institutions to which we adhere and are either "in" or "out," we ought to speak of "multiple religious identity," since it's more a concern about the individual's personal experience and expression of religiosity that is grounded in engagement with the continually developing and dynamically evolving social networks of meaning we call "religions."
With this framework we can speak of one's individual religious identity being composed of religious and spiritual elements experienced from more than one tradition or heritage. Indeed, I'm not only a husband to my wife, but also a brother to my sister and a son to my parents; so my identity is made up of a plurality of relational ingredients. This is also the case concerning individual religious identity. My identity is primarily shaped by the Christian tradition, and also more than one denomination of belief and practice within the Christian tradition (Unity, Episcopal Church, etc.), but my identity is also shaped and influenced by my interactions and exchanges with Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and others with whom I've come into contact and have found religious elements that I've found to be good, true and beautiful in their worldview. One is able to integrate and incorporate elements from the religious other into one's individual religious identity so that one might truthfully and authentically speak of having a multiple religious identity or worldview.
So it is by virtue of a transformation by integration of religious otherness and difference that a notion of multiple religious identity - not belonging - is possible.
Peace.
Anyway, as I've been diligently working on my last chapter concerned with Buddhist-Christian dialogue and transformation, there has been one particular issue that, while extremely engaging, isn't something I'm prepared to tackle in the diss itself: multiple religious belonging. That is, during my investigations into people's expressions of how they have learned from other religious traditions and how other religions have influenced their self-understanding as a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or whatever, what I've found is that quite a few (especially Christians in the Buddhist-Christian encounters) have described themselves as having been so impacted that they "belong" not only to one tradition but, to some extent, the other tradition as well.
This raises about a million questions: What is meant by "belonging? Is it even possible to truly or honestly claim to be both Christian and Buddhist or some other combination? And how could a situation like this not lead to a kind of misappropriation or misuse of one or more religions or lead to a dispelling of the distinct uniqueness of each tradition? Nonetheless, I want to suggest a different linguistic universe to discuss this and how it might be possible to genuinely and authentically make this kind of claim while not denigrating the richness and uniqueness of any religion or heritage.
Before giving my own basic understanding of the issue, I want to mention that there is a growing amount of scholarship on this very theme. See Many Mansions: Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity (Wipf & Stock, 2002), which is edited by Catherine Cornille and offers a number of Christian perspectives on the complexities of the problems that come with this topic. Also see the academic articles Peter C. Phan, "Multiple Religious Belonging: Opportunities and Challenges for Theology and Church," Theological Studies (2003), which argues for the possibility for multiple religious belonging through an "inclusive pluralism," and Gideon Goosen, "An Empirical Study of Dual Religious Belonging," Journal for Empirical Theology (2007), which presents a rather convincing case that such a phenomenon does, in fact, exist in the world.
My own understanding has been influenced significantly by a German theologian and scholar of religion teaching at the University of Muenster -- Perry Schmidt-Leukel. His work sets out the possibility of multiple religious belonging grounded in an interpretation of religion and religious experience as fundamentally and primarily (though not exclusively) individual. This means that, while we are communal, social beings, our "religiosity" is basically a personal, individual issue. Along with this claim, he maintains a re-conceptualization of the language used to speak of this issue. Rather than speaking of "multiple religious belonging," which suggests that religions are these static, unchanging, institutions to which we adhere and are either "in" or "out," we ought to speak of "multiple religious identity," since it's more a concern about the individual's personal experience and expression of religiosity that is grounded in engagement with the continually developing and dynamically evolving social networks of meaning we call "religions."
With this framework we can speak of one's individual religious identity being composed of religious and spiritual elements experienced from more than one tradition or heritage. Indeed, I'm not only a husband to my wife, but also a brother to my sister and a son to my parents; so my identity is made up of a plurality of relational ingredients. This is also the case concerning individual religious identity. My identity is primarily shaped by the Christian tradition, and also more than one denomination of belief and practice within the Christian tradition (Unity, Episcopal Church, etc.), but my identity is also shaped and influenced by my interactions and exchanges with Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and others with whom I've come into contact and have found religious elements that I've found to be good, true and beautiful in their worldview. One is able to integrate and incorporate elements from the religious other into one's individual religious identity so that one might truthfully and authentically speak of having a multiple religious identity or worldview.
So it is by virtue of a transformation by integration of religious otherness and difference that a notion of multiple religious identity - not belonging - is possible.
Peace.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Intriguing L&O Question
Last week I had my first Licensing and Ordination interviews through Unity Worldwide Ministries at Unity Institute. These are interviews aimed at assessing my progress and aptitude in my training toward ministerial leadership in Unity. Essentially, they ask us ministry students a series of questions ranging from personal growth to leadership issues and from metaphysics and theology to our understanding of the Bible.
In one of my interviews I was asked probably the most intriguing and challenging question posed to me, at least in content. The question essentially was as follows: "How do you understand the statement, 'This is neither right nor wrong; it simply is'?" Most of the queries shot at me were behavior-based questions concerning how I have reacted in a certain situation in the past or how I would deal with some hypothetical situation in the future or how I have applied a certain Unity teaching. However, this one caught me off-guard.
At the time, I think I gave some short, reactional answer dealing with affirming the truth of everything "just being" in the Absolute but needing to deem things right or wrong in everyday life, in the relative realm. It seemed to be well-received, but later on in the day the question still plagued me and I realized my answer didn't live up to my own liking. In fact, that night I awoke in the middle of the night with this very quandary on my mind - and couldn't get back to sleep, I might add.
So, as usual, I hashed out my own internal cognitive dissonance in ... the shower. Where else? After much frustrating dialogue with myself, I came to a tentative conclusion about the issue:
I actually have major problems with the statement that nothing is right or wrong, but simply "is". First of all, I believe we live in a morally ordered universe. That is, the universe or God or Ultimate Reality is essentially Good or "for us." This could also be expressed as "God's will" or "karma," both of which are grounded in the belief that there is something inherently moral about Ultimate Reality (however one understands this). And, since we humans are expressions or creations of this eternal, infinite Good, we ourselves are basically good. However, since we have free will (a requisite for any morality or ethical reasoning, by the way), we are able to make decisions that are to a greater or lesser extent aligned with God the Good and which have an impact on our experience and that of others as well. This, to me, means that we are fundamentally and essentially moral beings.
To say that everything simply "is" is a tendency toward an ignoring or downplaying of our moral reasoning, which necessitates using our Judgment/Wisdom spiritual power to discern what is in harmony with God the Good or not, to differentiate between experiences and behaviors that are good or bad, right or wrong, so that we can continually strive to demonstrate God as Love in our lives, relationships, and communities. Are we really going to encounter suffering, injustice, violence, oppression, and hegemony with an attitude and action of "this is neither right nor wrong; it simply 'is'"? To not take a stand with a resounding "no" to such atrocities in our lives, societies, and throughout the world is to neglect what Kant has called the "moral law within' (a la the Categorical Imperative). To not differentiate between right and wrong is to neglect our humanity, and to neglect our humanity is to ignore the divine within humanity. It is only through the discrimination of situations and experiences, informed by God's wisdom within, that we can move toward a world that works for all and that honors the child of God that we each are.
Sure, everything exists, but it is important for us to use our free will, moral reasoning, and spiritual wisdom in faith and understanding to discriminate between manifestations that are aligned with God the Good or ones that aren't so much, but may perhaps be used in the service of moving toward the expression of the Kingdom of God among us.
Peace.
In one of my interviews I was asked probably the most intriguing and challenging question posed to me, at least in content. The question essentially was as follows: "How do you understand the statement, 'This is neither right nor wrong; it simply is'?" Most of the queries shot at me were behavior-based questions concerning how I have reacted in a certain situation in the past or how I would deal with some hypothetical situation in the future or how I have applied a certain Unity teaching. However, this one caught me off-guard.
At the time, I think I gave some short, reactional answer dealing with affirming the truth of everything "just being" in the Absolute but needing to deem things right or wrong in everyday life, in the relative realm. It seemed to be well-received, but later on in the day the question still plagued me and I realized my answer didn't live up to my own liking. In fact, that night I awoke in the middle of the night with this very quandary on my mind - and couldn't get back to sleep, I might add.
So, as usual, I hashed out my own internal cognitive dissonance in ... the shower. Where else? After much frustrating dialogue with myself, I came to a tentative conclusion about the issue:
I actually have major problems with the statement that nothing is right or wrong, but simply "is". First of all, I believe we live in a morally ordered universe. That is, the universe or God or Ultimate Reality is essentially Good or "for us." This could also be expressed as "God's will" or "karma," both of which are grounded in the belief that there is something inherently moral about Ultimate Reality (however one understands this). And, since we humans are expressions or creations of this eternal, infinite Good, we ourselves are basically good. However, since we have free will (a requisite for any morality or ethical reasoning, by the way), we are able to make decisions that are to a greater or lesser extent aligned with God the Good and which have an impact on our experience and that of others as well. This, to me, means that we are fundamentally and essentially moral beings.
To say that everything simply "is" is a tendency toward an ignoring or downplaying of our moral reasoning, which necessitates using our Judgment/Wisdom spiritual power to discern what is in harmony with God the Good or not, to differentiate between experiences and behaviors that are good or bad, right or wrong, so that we can continually strive to demonstrate God as Love in our lives, relationships, and communities. Are we really going to encounter suffering, injustice, violence, oppression, and hegemony with an attitude and action of "this is neither right nor wrong; it simply 'is'"? To not take a stand with a resounding "no" to such atrocities in our lives, societies, and throughout the world is to neglect what Kant has called the "moral law within' (a la the Categorical Imperative). To not differentiate between right and wrong is to neglect our humanity, and to neglect our humanity is to ignore the divine within humanity. It is only through the discrimination of situations and experiences, informed by God's wisdom within, that we can move toward a world that works for all and that honors the child of God that we each are.
Sure, everything exists, but it is important for us to use our free will, moral reasoning, and spiritual wisdom in faith and understanding to discriminate between manifestations that are aligned with God the Good or ones that aren't so much, but may perhaps be used in the service of moving toward the expression of the Kingdom of God among us.
Peace.
A New Article I Wrote Published in SIS Journal
A recent article I've written has just been published in the peer-reviewed journal Studies in Spirituality, which approaches the subject of religious spirituality from a scholarly-academic perspective. My article is an outline and critical comparison of the Buddhist "perfection of wisdom" in The Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 Lines and the Christian "righteoused by faith" in Paul's letter to the Romans - both as paradigms of ultimate transformation.
To view abstracts and ordering information, visit here.
To view abstracts and ordering information, visit here.
Dialogue on Oneness with Fellow Unity Colleague Ogun Holder
Ogun Holder and I have been exchanging ideas in a dialogue concerning the nature of Oneness. Check out the posts on his blogsite Living in the Question.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Palin Calls Planned Islamic Center Near Ground Zero a 'Provocation'
For those who aren't yet aware, a new Islamic community center is being built and facilitated near Ground Zero where the Twin Towers used to be. The Cordoba Project, framed and named through inspiration from the YMCA and JCC (Jewish Community Center) formats in these respective traditions and called Cordoba after the Spanish city in the middle ages that fostered fruitful relations between all the Abrahamic faiths, is to be a community center designed to serve the local community and reach out to neighboring religions and cultures in the spirit of dialogue and collaboration toward equality, justice, and peace. It's really about improving Muslim-West relations.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is the chair of the Cordoba initiative and founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement, which was the first U.S. program focusing on bring together Muslims and non-Muslim through the avenues of academia, policy, current affairs, and culture.
However, though the Cordoba Project is actually a force for good, truth, and justice dedicated to fostering greater understanding across communities, cultures, and religions, Sarah Palin has denounced these efforts as "provocation" and against the "interests of healing" (The Hill, 7/18/10).
I believe Palin has grossly misunderstood the intentions and possibilities of the Cordoba initiative. Rather than spreading rumors and distorted tropes, perhaps she could gain a bit more insight through seeking to better understand and learn from the principles and actions of this very important and peace-making project.
For more, read the whole article by Ben Geman at The Hill.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is the chair of the Cordoba initiative and founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement, which was the first U.S. program focusing on bring together Muslims and non-Muslim through the avenues of academia, policy, current affairs, and culture.
However, though the Cordoba Project is actually a force for good, truth, and justice dedicated to fostering greater understanding across communities, cultures, and religions, Sarah Palin has denounced these efforts as "provocation" and against the "interests of healing" (The Hill, 7/18/10).
I believe Palin has grossly misunderstood the intentions and possibilities of the Cordoba initiative. Rather than spreading rumors and distorted tropes, perhaps she could gain a bit more insight through seeking to better understand and learn from the principles and actions of this very important and peace-making project.
For more, read the whole article by Ben Geman at The Hill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)