Part 2 of article

This is the second part of an article from the Vancouver Sun, talking about the 'war' between spirituality and religion. The author purports that spirituality is a personal thing while religion relates to the corporate nature of spiritual practice.

While it is difficult to find a balance between the personal and the corporate, Todd puts forth that a "good" religion is one that allows for growth and movements within the personal/corporate sphere. Humanity is constantly changing and growing and hence religion as one main structure of the human expression of Self needs to be able to change and grow with people. I wonder at the persons who do identify themselves as "not religious, but spiritual". Often when this statement is made to me, it is a defense mechanism usually meaning "don't shove your beliefs and judgments on me. That is the last thing that I need." I have always thought that those persons who have an aversion to "organized religion" are reacted to either a bad experience, misconceptions, or both. Often people attend worship services, but aren't educated about the practices that follow. It is not like someone says " we will now sing this song, or pray this prayer for reason 'X', " but rather, after someone has attended for a while, it is understood," this is just how we do this". However, along with the need for structure, it should not be so rigid that it staganates growth of the worshipper, but it should also not be so flexible that there is an "anything goes" thinking. This is the difficulty of defining worship and spiritual practices -- they do change as our understanding changes. But one must consider "what am I doing this for? or who? " and "does this practice help me to grow and challenge my understanding of the world?" If the answer is "I don't know" to the first questions, and "no" to the second... then maybe we need to think about why something isn't working for us or others and to discuss this with someone we trust.

SECOND OF TWO PARTS

Which is better: Religion or spirituality? Many people, especially on the West Coast of North America, now firmly believe that it's much better to be "spiritual" rather than "religious."

Before offering my answer to the question, however, it's crucial to explain the common definitions going round today of "religion" and "spirituality," plus a few of the widespread complaints against both.

Some of the many, many people today who stress "I'm spiritual, but not religious" feel strongly about defining religion as an absolutistic and dogmatic belief system locked up in an institution.

Their condemnation has some validity, even though they're not correct in portraying ALL religion as doctrinaire.

There can be no doubt that institutional religion frequently regresses to blind obedience and self-righteousness.

That's the assertion, for instance, of Vancouver's world-famous spiritual writer, Eckhart Tolle, author of The Power of Now. The people who champion "spirituality" generally use the term to refer to the private and free development of a person's private inner life.

Tolle, for instance, is typical of many in the way he describes spirituality as personal "transformation" to an "awakened" state, detached from one's ego and even from "belief" itself .

The main charges against Tolle's popular form of self-spirituality are that it can become privatistic, leading to self-absorption, narcissism, naivety, anti-intellectualism and an anything-goes moral relativism. Critics say those who follow private spirituality are often unwilling to engage wider society and, in failing to do so, support the social status quo.

Just as there is something to the prevailing attack on "religion," there is also some truth to this critique of "spirituality."

But the mutual bombardments do not at all comprise the whole story of "spirituality" and "religion."

There are more comprehensive ways of looking at both, which will expand the debate far beyond a simplistic argument that one is good and the other is bad.

There are many valid definitions of "spirituality," a term that has only become hot in the past decade.

But I think one of the best and broadest definitions of "spirituality" is that it is "the ways humans have sought to find meaning in the world." However, I have to immediately add that I join the renowned American sociologist of religion, Robert Bellah, in suggesting that religion, at its deepest level, is about the same process -- forming human meaning.

In today's religion-wary culture, many won't like this overlapping definition of "spirituality" and "religion." But if you accept it, you would have to conclude that, at least in their ideal form, both can be beneficial.

There is another link between the two terms. Even though "spirituality" is now used to refer exclusively to a human's inner life, many private spiritualities, if they prove persuasive to enough people, eventually develop into more structured communal worldviews.

That is what happened with the experiences and teachings of Moses, Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, Mohammed and Baha'u'llah.

It's also what is happening with some best-selling contemporary spiritual teachers, as their thinking becomes more formalized through study groups and inter-connected communities.

In other words, it appears that the thing Western society is really debating these days is the difference in value between private spirituality and community-based spirituality, which is also sometimes known as institutional religion.

Contrary to what many people like to believe, I am not convinced personal spirituality and communal religion are mutually exclusive. They are complementary.

And both need to be approached in a self-critical way.

Any institutional religion that is habitually dogmatic and that fails to nurture a sense of personal spirituality, of personal choice and transformation, is empty.

And any personal spirituality that remains merely private, that doesn't make an effort to directly connect with others, with the real world, with community life, is trivial.

So where does that leave us with the question: Which is better: Spirituality or religion?

The short answer is they are both important.

However, I will go out on an unpopular limb for the longer answer.

I would suggest that institutional religion - when it is truly self-correcting, non-authoritarian and encouraging of authenticity (which it often, admittedly, is not) -- is more complete than private spirituality.

Let me briefly make my case for the value of religion in institutional form:

• Institutional religion, at its best, can be open, evolving and self- reforming -- even while attempting to define and remain true to core values, beliefs and practices.

• A religious institution can incorporate a multitude of personal spiritual practices, including the self-spirituality and nature spirituality that are popular today.

• Religious institutions, ideally, create a sense of community, which often contribute to the well-being of individuals.

• Religious institutions can offer checks and balances on private belief and practice. They can help isolated individuals avoid going off on unhealthy, wrong-headed or dangerous spiritual tangents.

• As a community, a religion can accomplish things that isolated individuals cannot. Institutions can plan and strategize, creating force fields for positive transition, both within individuals and in the wider society.

Ultimately, I like the way that Washington state scholar Patricia O'Connell Killen talks about the value of religions, which she also calls "wisdom traditions."

Unlike private spiritualities, community-based religions can, at their optimum, help people realize they're not the centre of the universe, Killen says. They can also, through their collected knowledge, historical perspective and shared values, be invaluable in helping people face life's inevitable suffering. In doing so, they can renew personal and public hope.

In the end, I don't believe we need to buy into the current nasty war between (personal) spirituality and (community-based) religion.

After all, that creates a false either/or choice.

What we can do instead is foster more interaction between spirituality and religion, since they are simply different aspects of the same thing: Humans' eternal search for meaning.

Column from Vancouver Sun

Has 'religion' outlived its usefulness?

Despite the arguments that spirituality is somehow better, both seek to bring people together

Douglas Todd

Vancouver Sun

Saturday, August 29, 2009

CREDIT: Steve Bosch, Vancouver Sun, Files Eckhart Tolle is a New Age teacher who blends elements of Buddhism and Hinduism into his philosophy.

'Many people are already aware of the difference between spirituality and religion. They realize that having a belief system -- a set of thoughts that you regard as the absolute truth -- does not make you spiritual no matter what the nature of those beliefs is."

That's the influential opinion of one of the world's most famous living spiritual teachers. Vancouver-based Eckhart Tolle, promoted by Oprah Winfrey, has sold millions of copies of his books, including The Power of Now.

His repeated message is "religion" is bad (oppressive) and "spirituality" is good (liberating).

As Tolle writes in his latest mega-seller, A New Earth: Awakening to Life's Purpose, religious people are convinced "unless you believe exactly as they do, you are wrong in their eyes, and in the not-too-distant past, they would have felt justified in killing you for that. And some still do, even now."

Tolle is promoting what is fast becoming conventional wisdom in the western world: "Religion" is institutional, almost always authoritarian. "Religion" is equated with the Crusades, terrorism and judgmental U.S. televangelists.

"Religion," in the mind of Tolle and those who read his books in more than 30 languages, is rigid and divisive and absolutistic.

This same anti-religion message is being advanced by spiritual authors such as Neale Donald Walsch, author of the best-selling Conversations with God, and a host of other New Age teachers. To them "religion" is "fundamentalism."

In contrast, Tolle prefers the term "spiritual," which he describes as "the transformation of consciousness" -- to a state of "awakening."

In line with Tolle, many people in Canada, perhaps even most, now find it necessary to tell anyone who cares to listen: "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual."

The conviction that "religion" is essentially evil is now so pervasive in our culture that I am having even observant evangelical Christians, Jews and Muslims also tell me: "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual."

How did western society get to this point, where religion has become a dirty word?

Much of it has to do with shifting definitions.

What, after all, is "spiritual?"

What is "religious?"

Unless these important words are defined, people can spend a lot of time going round in conversational circles.

Let's start with "religion."

The Oxford Dictionary defines "religion" as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman power, esp. a personal God or gods." Oxford adds that religion is "a particular system of faith and worship." Most interesting is that the Latin root of "religion" is "to bind together."

Even though I quibble with this Oxford definition of religion, I accept it's relatively straightforward compared to the ever-evolving meanings of the amazingly popular and vague word, "spiritual."

American philosopher Ken Wilber is highly aware of the problems that occur when people don't nail down what they mean by "spiritual." He cites several usages.

One common understanding of "spiritual" is that it's a state of consciousness, such as those achieved through meditation, he says. Another definition of "spiritual" refers to embodying an attitude, such as love or wisdom.

A third use of "spiritual" restricts it to higher states of consciousness or maturity. I'll add a fourth definition of "spiritual" -- how a person finds ultimate meaning.

Although it's hard to tell with Tolle, since he's not overly systematic, he seems to basically define "spiritual" in line with Wilber's first definition -- as a state of mind, as the state of being detached from one's ego.

Mark Shibley, of Southern Oregon University, suggests there are two major types of alternative spiritualities (as distinct from organized religions) operating in North America, which often overlap.

The first type most fits Tolle and Walsch. Shibley calls what they promote "self-spirituality."

They focus on the self as sacred. Tolle and Walsch, both of whom live in the Pacific Northwest, or Cascadia, where self-spirituality is commonplace, emphasize private psychological practice over doctrine.

The second major spiritual group adheres to Earth reverence. They stress that nature is divine. They tend to have mystical moments not in churches or temples, but in the wilderness.

Now that we've fleshed out the terms, religious and spiritual, let's get down to the big question.

Which is better?

Spiritual or religious?

If you define "religion" as Tolle and Walsch do -- as rigidly institutional, fundamentalist and self-righteous -- you would have to opt for "spiritual." After all, personal "transformation" seems more authentic than this harsh, top-down religion.

But if you keep in mind the dictionary definition of "religion" -- that it's a "system of faith" that may serve to "bind together" humans with each other, the world and a transcendent reality -- the rivalry between the two becomes not so clear-cut.

Is it not possible to be "spiritual," to practise inner transformation, at the same time one is "religious," that is, working to bond with a higher power and wider community through shared beliefs?

The great sociologist, Robert Bellah, in a recent article in the Buddhist magazine, Tricycle, writes that making a sharp distinction between religion and spirituality creates a false dichotomy. And that's what Tolle does.

The author of ground-breaking books, such as Habits of the Heart, helpfully broadens the definition of religion to, "the many ways humans have sought to find meaning, to make sense of their lives."

I find Bellah's definition better than even the one supplied by the Oxford Dictionary, since it can include religions that posit no God or gods, such as forms of Buddhism.

It's also close to the definition I tend to use most for "spiritual." And, in many ways, the definitions are interchangeable.

Bellah also persuasively maintains that trying to rid the world of religion -- since it's often corrupted -- would be absurd.

It would be like saying, "Let's get rid of the economy," because it often does harmful things.

"Religion meets a human need, and if you get rid of it in one form, it will come back in another," Bellah says.

That, indeed, is what is happening with contemporary "spirituality."

Even though Tolle's promoters always stress that he is "not aligned with any particular religion or tradition," his teachings are dependent on ideas that have emerged over the millennia from Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and western philosophy.

And try as Tolle and many others might to emphasize that "spirituality" is only an inner, private experience, the hundreds of spiritual groups that are forming around Tolle's work, at his encouragement, are developing their own shared beliefs, thoughts, practices, orthodoxies and sense of community.

Just like a religion.

- - -

Read Douglas Todd's blog at www.vancouversun.com/

thesearch

Next week: What it takes for "religion" and "spirituality" to be healthy.

© The Vancouver Sun 2009

God needs an image makeover... article

This is an interesting article I found in a newspaper.

The many names (and images) of god

Douglas Todd

Vancouver Sun

Saturday, May 31, 2008

God needs an image makeover -- and there's no better place to start than with God's name.

Whenever someone mentions "God" in Canada, conversations crash to a halt. Everyone gets nervous. And it's not just from Canadian politeness.

It's because most people mistakenly think they know what the other is talking about when they say "God." Typically, they assume the "God" in question is a stern, patriarchal monarch in the sky.

Most Canadians, whether they consider themselves religious or not, seem stuck with the limited picture of God they had when they were early teenagers dropping out of church, synagogue, mosque or temple.

However, the concept of "God" is endlessly complex and nuanced and divinity deserves a more thoughtful name, or names.

"God" is an exaggerrated version of words such as "love," "truth," "spirituality" and "post-modern;" that is, "God" is a rich and contentious word, laden with multiple meanings.

We need to use fresher names for God. Just as people change their names to highlight different aspects of themselves -- such as when hard-driving "Priscilla" becomes more masculine "Kerry" or aboriginal "Jim George" becomes "Thundercloud" -- different names for "God" highlight different divine identities.

Through history there have been hundreds of names for "God."

Some half-decent contemporary names are "the divine," "spirit," "the holy," "the one," "the transcendent" and "the sacred" (all of which can be capitalized, depending on preference.)

The process of rebranding "God" brings to mind how Muslims long ago developed 99 "beautiful" names for "God" (or "Allah" (in Arabic) to capture the full glory and wonder of the transcendent.

I'd guess many Canadians stereotype Muslims as thinking about God mainly as a tough, vengeful dictator. But some of the 99 names for God include "The Compassionate," "The Pardoner," "The Majestic," "The Bountiful," "The Watchful," "The Wise," "The Giver of Life," "The Hidden," "The Unifier" and "The Light."

Jews have found a good way to deal with the unfortunate misunderstandings that can come from the name, "God:" Many choose simply not to use the word. Instead, they'll write "G-d."

This is a useful and humble approach, which reminds me of how U.S. geochemist Rustom Roy called for the complete eradication of the word God. He suggested integrating science and religion and replacing the word God with ****, which to him denotes the "cloud of essence."

At the same time, Jews also developed dozens of names for God in the Hebrew Bible (which Christians know as the Old Testament), including "Adonai," "Elohim," "El Shaddai" and, intriguingly, "I am what I am becoming."

In medieval times some Jews cleverly called God "The Seven," combining seven titles for the deity in one.

Although the Catholic and Protestant churches have for centuries tended to stress "Lord," "Almighty" and "Father" as names for God, Jesus and his followers adopted many others.

Influenced by Jewish and Greek tradition, their names for God included "Creator," "the Mountain," "Abba (daddy)," "the Word," "Logos," "Yahweh," "Sophia" and "the Light." Many Christians have recently been referring to God as "Redeemer" and "Sustainer."

As for Hindus, many name the supreme cosmic spirit as "Brahman." Others highlight personal manifestations of God in "Vishnu" or "Krishna."

Sikhs may speak of God as "Akal Purakh," meaning timeless primal being. In Chinese folk religion, God is often referred to as "Zhu" (Lord in Heaven) or "Shen" (spirit). Taoists talk about the ultimate as "the Tao" or "The Way."

Even Buddhists have something to say about divinity. Although most Theravadan Buddhists do not believe in a Creator, many Pure Land Buddhists give "Amithaba" eternal powers similar to those ascribed to God.

In the book, Philosophers Speak of God, edited by Charles Hartshorne and William Reese, philosophers reveal some of their many names for divinity -- including "elan vital (life force)," "the call forward," "divine intelligence," "the lure" and the "ordering principle."

All of which goes to show the name "God" is never to be taken for granted.

Next time someone drops the name into a conversation, pro or con, ask them which "God" they're talking about.

And don't let them off the hook by allowing them to argue "no one should try to define God because the transcendent is beyond full comprehension."

While it's true defining "God" will always be elusive and unprovable, it's a cop-out to not take a stab at it -- perhaps especially when someone is trying to reject belief in "God."

Asking people what they mean when they say "God" will put them on the spot and make them think, which is usually a good thing.

What's in a name? When it comes to "God," quite a lot.

To reach Douglas Todd, go to this blog at www.vancouversun.com/blogs

Art and what it says...

Blessed Art Thou




Hmm.. Today's local paper had an article about this painting.. under the heading of Blessed Angelina.. (here is link to the blog by artist, Kate Kretz.)


Angelina Jolie has been turned into the Virgin Mary in a controversial new painting by artist Kate Kretz.
The actress and humanitarian is depicted as the mother of Jesus Christ, while her adopted kids Maddox and Zahara and biological baby Shiloh are featured as angels in the piece, titled Blessed Art Thou.
The painting, which will be unveiled at the Art Miami Fair today, addresses "the cycle of celebrity worship" and depicts Jolie in a flowing gown hovering in the clouds above a dimly lit shopping store, populated by shoppers.
Kretz, who spent five months creating the painting, says, "Our culture is deifying celebrities, but, in the Bible, it is the meek who are blessed, so the title presents a question for the viewer to ponder.
"Angelina Jolie was chosen as the subject because of her unavoidable presence in the media, the world-wide anticipation of her child, her unattainable beauty and the good that she is doing in the world through her example, which adds another layer to the already complicated questions surrounding her status."
Kretz, a former professor, reveals her virgin [Jolie] and Zahara figures are loosely based on a painting by Sir Anthony Von Dyck, while Maddox's pose is borrowed from a painting by Italian High Renaissance artist Raphael.
January 5, 2007
24 hours


So the explanation is that it is a "food for thought" regarding the deification of celebrities. Interesting .. considering an article in the Vancouver Sun a few days ago with headline that celebrities are not health experts and yet people look to them as models on everything from dieting to exercise advice.
************************************


This reminds me of other artworks I have seen over the years.

An ad for the Catholic priesthood based on Matrix style pose, an effort to attract candidates to the dying vocation. I saw this picture in a newspaper with an article explaining the rationale. It said something to the effect of "the appeal of religious vocation is dying out and hence there was an attempt to make it look adventurous, daring, exciting.. etc."

'A tribute to women' ... The Last Supper advertisement for Marithé and François Girbaud

This is from an ad for clothing from a Parisian company... banned for defaming the Christian faith.

Milan bans Da Vinci parody February 4, 2005 (Excerpt)

Their decision follows a ruling by the city advertising watchdog last month. This Last Supper "inevitably recalls the very foundations of the Christian faith", said the Istituto di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria. "This kind of image, with a high concentration of theological symbols, cannot be recreated and paro died for commercial ends without offending the religious sensitivities of at least part of the population."
"One of the women apostles is kissing the naked torso of a man, which just makes the imitation more offensive. As does the use of Christian symbols like the dove, the chalice and the position of the fingers of the female Christ."

Of course, there are other interesting interpretations of art in the "deification" or use of religious genre that have sparked interest, or controversy. Interesting that it is often controversy that sparks our vocalization in the interest of protecting the Christian faith, but rarely is there a unified voice otherwise. It is hard to define this issue as spirituality and faith are a personal issue. We are not to judge others for our difference of opinion, but are encouraged to attempt dialogue versus debate.

Interesting isn't it? As the point of art is usually to make a point about some aspect of society/cultural norms, and to spark thinking about the definition of norms and rationale behind current thinking/behavior.

Thoughts anyone?