Religion and/or Spirituality---

[Admin]

Hello, all:

Here are my thoughts with reference to the discussion we had at the tail end of the Intensive.

“Mrs. Lincoln, the theatre is really a fine institution, and I hate seeing you allow that one thing to deprive you of the broad spectrum of culture and entertainment the theatre offers.”
True? Absolutely. Fair? Possibly.
Helpful? No. Unkind? Definitely.
I am afraid I have played a similar role with people who identify as “Spiritual, but Not Religious.” I hear them say that religion is all rules, dogmas, abusiveness and authoritarianism, because that is what their experience has taught them. When I tell them that my experience is of acceptance, support, fellowship, intellectual stimulation, music and the arts, opportunities for service, and a story huge and awesome enough for my while life to fit inside it, I’m not trying to invalidate their experience, emotions or choices—but I’m afraid that’s what they hear.
They see anti-gay bigotry; I saw my parish sponsor the first AIDS hospice in its rural Pennsylvania county. They see judgmentalism toward unwed mothers; I attended a church that ran a free daycare center. They see priests who prey on altar boys; I see nuns who nurse the sick and care for the poorest of the poor. They see the blow-dried peddlers of the “prosperity gospel;” I see faith-based coalitions demonstrating for living wage and gun-control laws.
I want to say to the SBNRs that their experience is not of religion per se, but of religion distorted and perverted. But many of them are so raw, so armored and defended around their choices—choices they made, in many cases, against fierce opposition from family and religious community—that they cannot hear that. If I suggest they aren’t looking at the big picture, they hear me telling them they’re wrong. They carry a soft, painful wound, and they have so hardened around it that the mere utterance of a word can put them on high alert.
So just to be clear, here’s what I mean by “religion.”
1) I mean what the word itself literally means: “that which ties together.” Whatever ties your whole life together is your religion. For Scrooge, it was money; for Capt. Ahab, it was the pursuit of the white whale. For the Dalai Lama, it is kindness.
2) I mean a disciplined practice. Religion is what shows up for work when spirituality calls in sick. It is motions to go through when inspiration fails. It is the “working the Steps” that enables Twelve Steppers to “fake it till they make it.” It is ethical and moral codes of conduct.
Any relationship takes work; if I only behaved like a married person when the spirit moved me, I wouldn’t stay married for long. And as a person who has struggled on and off with depression, I cannot overstate the importance of getting my sorry butt to church on Sunday and to the meditation cushion on the other days, even when those are the last things I feel like doing. That’s what keeps the channels open; when spiritual inspiration comes home, I want it to find the fridge stocked and the lights on.
3) I mean community, whether a Buddhist sangha, a Catholic parish, a Jewish congregation, a Quaker meeting, a Kabbalist circle or a Twelve Step room—or any other collection of humans who are there to support you on your path: to pray with you, listen to you, or talk you down when you want to use.
4) I mean service. Sponsoring other Friends of Bill, canvassing for internal hiring at the Philly airport, cooking and serving meals for the homeless, listening to people who are hurting.
5) Finally, I mean reverence. Most often, this takes the form of devotion to one’s chosen form of the divine, but it can also mean saluting the Buddhas of one’s lineage, cultivating a relationship with one’s Higher Power, or contemplating the wonders of nature. It also includes prayer, aspirations (such as Buddhism’s “May all beings awaken and be free,”) or “holding someone in the Light,” Quaker style.
If I had to put it into a single sentence, I’d say that religion is a set of tools to support spirituality. If you call yourself “spiritual” and you have these things, you are “religious” to me. If you don’t have them, then I plainly don’t understand what you mean by “spiritual.”
I used to urge my Wiccan friends to quit wasting emotional energy on trying to get people to stop using the word “witch” in ways they don’t like, call themselves “Wiccans” already, save their strength for better things and move on. And though nobody’s asked for it, that’s still my prescription. But I realize that what’s sauce to them as goose is also sauce to me as gander, so here’s what I’m prepared to do: 1) stop telling people that the thing that hurt them isn’t religion but something else; 2) start calling what I mean by religion “Following a Spiritual Path,” or something—whatever it takes to keep that wall from going up between me and my fellow humans; 3) save my strength for better things—like ministering to the hurting from their own point of view rather than trying to get them to understand mine—and 4) move on.
I’m going to agree to let the “R-word” go, even though I believe lots of people are misunderstanding it and using it wrong. Because although I am powerfully drawn to the magnetic north of setting people straight, I know what True North really is: helping the wounded to heal—and if their wounds were dealt by people claiming to profess what I profess, then their claim on my forbearance is even greater.
And to the players, predators and hate-mongers who are poisoning the well of religion, I say, with the prophet Jeremiah, “’Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!’” declares the LORD.”
__
The Rev. Scott Robinson, PhD., TSSF
7815 Ardleigh Street
Philadelphia, PA 19118
267 970 3287
www.opentothedivine.com
www.mandalaband.net

[Admin]

From Leslie:

Jambo Rev Scott,
There is nothing that you say that I do not agree with. HOWEVER, you have defined religion in you terms and experience, and most people would not articulate your definition if asked to define “religion”. Hence, the problem.
When I define intrafaith, I find many people understand what I am saying, but they are still bonded to their own religious faith and its defined teachings. They find it an interesting discussion and no more. As it should be.
For me, The New Seminary is about understanding that words and their definitions are different based on people, culture, religious doctrine, and a myriad of other factors.
I do not believe it is my job to embrace all, but to listen in understanding to find our commonalities of faith so that there are things that can bond us outside of defined religion & doctrine.
It is also important to me to understand that a religion is actually a group of people with a doctrine. A church is a group of people. That is why you can go to one church and feel alienated, and yet go to another of the same doctrine and feel embraced. It is the people.
God is inclusive, people are not.
Just my point of view. And thanks for the insight, as I am so far away and not able to join in on much of what is going on, so thanks again,
Leslie

Sent from Windows Mail

[Admin]

From Fr. John:

I too am put off by the ‘spiritual but not religious’ proclamation. I want to ask “What do you mean? What is your daily spiritual practice? What informs your spirituality? How does it manifest itself? Are you in touch with likeminded people?”

Rev. Scott’s meaning of religion is by definition correct for him and by the terms of our conversations and the interfaith approach, incontrovertible. Moreover, I agree with what he says. I especially like his simple statement ‘…..religion is a set of tools to support spirituality.” The problem I see is that religions themselves (forgive the broad brush) often do not emphasize the very things that Rev. Scott and all of us should find meaning in. Community becomes the ‘kiss of peace’ and little else. Disciplined practice becomes more about discipline than practice. Service is the collection plate, the contents of which pay the church’s electric bill not feed the poor. Reverence seems to be exclusive to the Sabbath.

I don’t mean to paint a bleak picture nor throw the baby out with the bath water. To be sure there are faith communities (notice I didn’t say religions) that meet Rev. Scott’s ideal. Most of us who have self-selected our way to TNS specifically and the interfaith community in general have either found such communities, are looking for them or would like to create them.

Language is important, as Leslie says. Unfortunately the word religion has some very specific meanings and connotations to the vast majority of people. Spiritual path does too. The former is too often defined by traditions, history and rules and the later denotes some la-la land amorphous search that started at Woodstock.

The road we travel in interfaith as we’ve defined it at TNS for many years is a difficult one because it emphasizes the value of one’s root religion and but implies the value of the roots of that religion. Why is that difficult? Because it poses questions for us like: Do we really respect all religions, even ones whose rules we find abhorrent? Do we hold that all religions are equally appropriate ways to the divine? How do we help those who have left their religion and are seeking something else to fill that void? How do we let people know that there may be a void in their lives that needs filling? In the end…What is interfaith? That conversation has clearly begun for this new class. Hopefully we’ll have some face to face talk about this in March. But along the way please think about these issues and continue the conversation in this forum.

Fall is clearly in the air here in southern CT. I hope the sun is shining wherever you are.

Peace and blessings,

Fr. John

[Admin]

From Mike:

Good morning all,
This same discussion was at the forefront of the Transcendental movement. Emerson simply answered in one of his essays,"Religion is to do right. It is to love, it is to serve, it is to think, it is to be humble."
I kind of like this approach. He wrote again. "The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next."


Emerson was trying to change the rhetoric surrounding the communities in his day. One way he hoped would work was the idea of Transcendentalism. Any ways, just adding to the discussion.
Mike

[Admin]

From Leslie:

good dialogue, I hope everyone joins in. It is this expression of our soul that we as intrafaith practitioners share, whether it be with words or actions. I know this should get Dr. Ted on board, for he is always after me about “what is your definition of soul?”
Rev Scott and Rev John, thank you, your words do define your actions, and I hope that we all have differing thoughts to share,
Leslie

Sent from Windows Mail

[Admin]

From Joy/Jennifer:

Rev. Scott & all:

"3) save my strength for better things—like ministering to the hurting from their own point of view rather than trying to get them to understand mine"

This, exactly this. Even though I'm pretty Pagan-y, Christian tradition and the person of Jesus are still large parts of my spirituality and practice. However, as a leader of an ostensibly Pagan, but really just 'eclectic' Circle, my Christian praxis and devotion is the one part of my spirituality that I cannot explicitly bring to group ritual. I could tell the people I work with all day long that Jesus is one of my great spiritual beloveds, that the Church that hurt them isn't the same as Jesus, who longs for their healing and comfort, that things are changing in the Church...but their wounds still speak too loudly. I serve them best by hearing their stories, ministering to them in a way that is mindful of their wounds, and offering other options and paths to the Divine, regardless of what I've found most powerful or efficacious in my own life.

I find it a lovely and admirable thing to want to reclaim a word, or a system, or a story, or a figure, to help others see the glowing truth of it, but I feel that the better part of zeal is compassion. I would never want my enthusiasm for twining Christian and Pagan practice together to serve as a stumbling block to one of my brethren or sistren whose wounds are still too fresh and whose path still too new. Rather, I remember Avalokitesvara, who, out of compassion, was willing to wear whatever face an individual needed in order for them to find enlightenment/God.

I agree that cultivating discipleship/practice poses specific challenges in an interfaith context...though, if the entirety of my youth and adolescence in various churches are any indicator, that's a big challenge within defined religious traditions as well. As interfaith ministers, we have at least one advantage here, in that way have (perhaps, hopefully) a larger toolkit of ways to support spirituality, more options to offer. In my Circle, we attempt to present these options for practice...and sometimes it works (and sometimes it doesn't. We keep right on offering.). Sometimes, all it takes is finding a technique that resonates with someone's heart, and they'll pick it up and use it to sustain and strengthen their spirituality. Sometimes, that means that they get involved with a local Buddhist group as well, or the Krishna temple, in order to have a group of folks who are also pursuing that particular practice. As a small, resource-limited Circle, we're very clear that we can't be all things to all our members - can't support small groups for all the options we offer in ritual - but we can offer those options, and provide guidance on using them consistently and effectively.

Finally, it was so lovely to meet those of you that I was privileged to see in person this weekend. I look forward to many more discussions throughout the year!

Blessings,

Joy/Jennifer

[Admin]

From Fr. John:

Forgive my behaving like the thought police but I’m reposting this with a new subject heading as we have traveled quite a distance from the safe space topic. Please be conscious of accurate subject lines when you post anything throughout the year.

Dean John

[Admin]

Seminarians, Ordinands, and TNS Faculty,

I would like to second what Rev. Jay has said and draw our attention to the definitions he has sent out. In my view, there should be a place for passionate dialogue in The New Seminary, but we must be very careful not to construct US-THEM categories. Referring to SBNR people as "they" unfortunately puts these precious beings in the category of "them." Some of our students at The New Seminary identify as SBNR, and I, for one, am sympathetic with any student who wishes to explore spiritual orientations rather than adopting the formal tenants of a religion that does not go down easily. So, I, as a member of the Saraswati order established in 8th century India, would be placed in the SBNR category as a "them." Rev. Jay says that he, too, is an SBNR in wanting students to engage in exploration.

Rev. Jay has asked me to coordinate the Spring Retreat, and I think it would be great to have a panel on SBNR. We will need four panel participants, two representing each side of the "dialogue," one faculty and one student on each side) and I use this word "dialogue" mindfully as a conscious alternative to "argument." Please let me know if you want to serve as a participant on the SBNR panel.

With all best wishes,
Sw. Shraddhananda

[Jill]

I am testing a reply here, just to see if I have to be a member to post....
Jill

[Admin]

Perhaps the statement “Spiritual but not religious” is the plaintive wail of a soul who is seeking a connection to the love, mercy, peace, compassion and truth of religion without the codified doctrine, norms, conventions and other accoutrements (cooties) of religion.

For me, I am excited whenever I hear this statement because it marks a signpost in the individual’s journey toward self-awareness in relation to the Divine Presence. The statement SBNR is like an open can of worms which we can use to bait the hook of the rod we use to become fishers of men.

Although I self-identify as a Christian, I believe there is sufficient thematic accord within all the sacred texts to allow cross referenced teaching on various concepts, which may soften the resistance of the SBNR set. Much love,

Julianne M. Robertson King Esq.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

New International Version (NIV)

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

[Admin]

I will put a plate of a different potter on the table, if I may.

Perhaps "Spiritual but not Religious" is a sentiment of a person who feels s/he has moved beyond what feels like a confinement of organized religions and s/he now sees a bigger picture. A picture where it is difficult to confine one's beliefs and knowings into a prescription that has fit others for decades, centuries or longer but does not fit him/her. Perhaps it is a connection to the Infinite Divine that defies description, for when we reduce our spiritual knowings to words, we must diminish them in some way.

Maybe it is that kind of Divine Connection. And when asked, "What is your religion?" his answer is. "Love."

Just thinking,
Darla

[zena]

Wow! What incredible minds and hearts you all have! Religion has been a "dirty" word to me, but I am so impressed by Rev. Scott's personal explanation of it. I think that there is true religion that integrates spirituality, and then there is polluted religion that preys on minds that dwell on exclusivity, power, me against them mentality, lacking in compassion for all others. I believe that everything is God - even though I don't like it all. All of these various religions and divisions within religions have led us to the magnificent choice of "really, what is this all about?" Maybe that is part of its purpose - to get us the point beyond concepts, beyond words, beyond religion, beyond spirituality to the clarity of ultimate reality. Spirituality does seem "airy fairy" to most concrete thinkers. In a way the difference between those who go the religious route and those who go the spiritual route is that the religious need form, direction books, preachers, congregations, weekly get togethers, direct connection to God from the mind; while, to me. the spiritual need the great outdoors, connection with nature, silent communion, dancing, direction connection to God from the heart.
Perhaps one is more group orientate and one is more the solo route. None is better. They are equal, but different. I am so excited to be able to open my mind to all the new opportunities to view life through all of your eyes, leading to the eye of God!
-Zena