Author: Bruce Schuman
Date: Monday, July 14, 2008
Subject: evolution - co-creativity
In reply to: 100151

I appreciate your response, Theodore. These issues regarding evolution -- of an entire tradition, or of a personal religious interpretation -- are right at the essence of what is emerging today.

***

Paul C: The reluctance to go create a faith that includes all faiths actually has to do with epistemological humility and having seen how much theological attempts at defining the truth for us all have been misguided and even destructive.

Bruce S (previously): I agree with this. History gives us many failed examples. And yet -- there seems to be a fundamental and universal human drive towards doing exactly this. Is it some human weakness or innate tendency to prejudice or narrowness? I see the drive towards "syncretism" as an inherent and positive aspect of the human instinct to create solutions, to create answers. It should not be repressed, but instead, be seen as a vital and healthy and probably essential part of cultural and religious evolution.

Theodore: I also agree with humility in the face of difference, and the danger of imposing or assuming agreement when it is not really there. I think evolution is something often overlooked in discussions of faith because it is so gradual.

Bruce: Is "a religion" an inherently institutional thing? Swami Vivekananda -- hero of the 1893 Parliament of World Religions -- would say no. Religion is simply the conceptual garb of the Spirit as we know it in some immediate local context. If we have negotiated some body of agreements, as the framework for community -- we thereby have achieved structure -- perhaps at the price of rigidity and division.

Theodore: None of the faith traditions have really remained the same over the centuries. Their doctrines change; new ideas and attitudes come into play; new movements and sects develop. Religions also respond to each other.

Bruce: Very good point. I remember reading about the life of George Fox, founder of the Quakers. He lived during a time of intense religious ferment, and could be said to have "responded" to influences from many traditions. Out of them all -- to some degree honoring them all -- he emerged with a simple powerful doctrine that has remained vital to this day. Could we call his new ideas "syncretic"? Should we see them as somehow a "patchwork"? That seems wrong. The creative process of the Spirit drew from many sources -- but emerged with a powerful and unique integrity.

Theodore: I'm not enough of a scholar to know the details, but it's fascinating to me how much interreligious exchange has actually occurred in history.

It's difficult even to identify what the beliefs of a particular faith are. Each of us comes to faith differently, with different goals and assumptions, even if we learn to repeat the same language. Each group contains an element of orthodoxy and an element of liberalism.

Bruce: It's an inherent part of assimilating ideas. Any doctrine, conceptualized in "mere words" -- is subject to divisive interpretation. This controversy is inevitable -- and should not be surprising. If we want to "get beyond dualistic division", we have to give up the search for the perfect language -- an expression that works in every case and every instance. Any attempt to make some perfect conceptual expression, it seems to me, is wrong-headed.

Theodore: As Bruce is pointing out, the world is fundamentally changing in its awareness. We change when we gain new knowledge; we cannot help it.

Bruce: Right. This is a critical point. This theme -- plus the notion of globalization -- is all we really need to understand the driving forces behind the emerging new spirituality. We experience something with open eyes, we learn something, we are changed. To deny this process -- is destructive, unhealthy, crippling.

Theodore: Real, authentic dialogue will inevitably lead some people to alter their religious perspective, even if they remain deeply loyal to their tradition. There is something about the reality of another person, another way of life, that cracks us open to a new, broader way of looking at things. We can hold on to narrow perspectives only by denying what is in front of us.

Bruce: You have stated the primary theme of "co-creativity" very well. If "diverse" people enter into a process of dialogue and deep listening and mutual respect -- and maintain that posture of respect in an honest and humble search for truth -- they will be transformed by that process -- and out of it will emerge something new -- something unprecedented, something unheard of, something that incorporates all the perspectives that contributed to it.

Interfaith -- is a process that fully embraces this creativity. On the one hand, it maintains a bridge to the traditions, honoring and respecting their authenticity and essential value to their culture. On the other hand, interfaith holds open the door to mystery, to sacred creativity, to what is new, unknown, primal. Would it be too naive to hope the bridge from that center of mystery to all the traditions of the world could be made vibrantly alive in a fully conscious and intentional way -- confirming both what is new, and what is eternal -- ? Out of our global conversation, the sacred creative processes are driving the emergence of a new world view. We who are listening are simply receiving it, are simply part of it.

Please sign in to participate!