NAINConnect 2008 - All Workshop Messages
AS 'INTERFAITH COMMUNITY,' WHO ARE WE?
Workshop | Blog

1.
Author: MARK GIBSON
Date: Monday, March 16, 2009
Subject: A NEED TO KNOW
ID: 100175

TODAY I HAVE HAD AN EPERIENCE WITH WRITING AND RESEARCH ON QUOTES AND SCRIPTURES FROM 3 DIFFERENT RELEGIONS THIS CAME AFTER I WROTE A PAGE OF SOMETHING I DONT KNOW BUT THIS SEEMS TO BE A GOOD PLACE TO QUESTION MYSELF OR GET COMMENTS TO ALLOW MYSELF TO OPEN UP. AS A JOURNEY BEGINS A LIFE TO UNEXPENDECIES UNKNOWN TO THE FUTURE COMES A DAY WHEN THE FUTURE BECOMES THE PRESENT.FOR EACH STEP CREATES A FUTURE THAT IS TODAY. WE WALK UPON THIS EARTH AS A FORAMTION OF SOUL AND MASS FOR WE HAVE NO ANSWERS TO EXPLAIN THIS PHEONOMINON. WE HAVE A CONSCIUOS THOUGHT PROCESS THAT SEEMS TO UNFOLD AS THE MINUTE PROGRESSES TOWARDS THE HOUR HAND. THIS BEGINS A SERIES OF UNASWERABLE QUESTIONS THAT AT ONE TIME WHETHER TODAY OR TOMMORROW WILL EVENTUALLY BE ANSWERED. THIS WILL NOT BE ANSWERED BY A NATURE OF A QUESTION BUT BY ACTION. WE SEE LIFE WITH INDIVIDUAL EYES NO MATTER HOW TOGETHER WE STAND. WE MAY AGREE OR DISAGREE ON THE COLOR OF THE SKY KNOWING THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH. THIS EXPLANATION IS IN A TECHNICAL FORMAT THOUGH THE SIMPLICITY FORMAT WOULD MAKE SO MUCH MORE SENCE. WE HAVE A CIVILIZATION THAT IS DIVIDED AS IT IS CONFUSED. SO MANY CHOICES WE FACE IN A DAY THAT DECISIONS BECOME TOUGHER AND TOUGHER STEMMING FROM WHAT TO EAT TO HOW TO WALK DOWN THE STREET. A RECENT STRING OF MASS MURDERS FOLLOWED BY SUICIDES HAS PLAGUED THIS WORLD RECESION. THROUGHOUT AGES THESE HAVE BEEN THE SAME RECESSION OR DEPRESSION HAS LED TO THESE ACTIONS. THIS HAS NOT BEEN AS MORE NOTICIED THEN NOW. DURING THIS PRESENT TIME THE BLAME FOR THE WORLD RECESSION IS PRIMARILY PUT UPON ONE NATION FOR THE DECESIONS THAT ARE MADE TO DRIVE UP A VALUE OF LIFE. THE WORLD HAS GONE IN SEVERAL DIRECTIONS FROM RELIGON, POLITICAL, AND SOCIALISTIC VIEWS. THE OVERWHELMING QUESTION IS WHAT DRIVES THOSE SYSTEMS, SOME SAY HEART SOME SAY IDEALISM. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? THE PAST ONCE AGAIN PRESENTS ITSELF WITH A NEW HYDRA HEAD FROM THE SAME BODY IT APPEARS ITSELF. WITH THE HEAD COMES A NEW SET OF VOICES/LEADERS EACH ONE WITH HIS/HER PERSPECTIVE ON THE SCENERIOS ABROAD. EVERYONE HAS A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM BUT NO ANSWERS. DO NOT DWELL IN THE PAST, DO NOT DREAM OF THE FUTURE, CONCENTRATE THE MIND ON THE PRESENT. THE PRESENT EXISTS AT THE MOMENT THE CURRENT STATEMENT PRESENTS ITSELF. "Those who believe, and those who follow the scriptures, and the Christians...and all who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God”. A QUESTION TO THINK ABOUT IS ARE WE ALL WRONG OR DO WE JUST SEE DIFFERENT WORDS.

2.
Author: jeremy taylor
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009
Subject: dr. rev. jeremy taylor steals on google
ID: 100169

type in google dr. jeremy taylor d.min stole the name, he stole a God spoken protected christians ministry name and wrote and called ministry above copyrights, now kathy taylor has his website in her name, so if rev jeremy taylor lies to you, like he did to me, dont beleive him and tell on him

3.
Author: Bruce Schuman
Date: Monday, July 14, 2008
Subject: evolution - co-creativity
ID: 100151
In reply to: 100146

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.

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.

4.
Author: Theodore Timpson
Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Subject: evolution
ID: 100146

Bruce, I like your response approach. I'll be less thorough, but here's mine.

Bruce S: 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. 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. 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.

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

5.
Author: Bruce Schuman
Date: Monday, July 7, 2008
Subject: Unity / Diversity
ID: 100144

Years ago, when we first started doing inter-religious discussion online (on Leonard Swidler's "Interrel" listserv, for example), we were experimenting with a form of "online dialogue". Of course, this written approach lacks many elements of an in-person discussion, and requires a sensitivity to context and intent -- but writing has some advantages. I thought I would try our little method here. We have sent literally hundreds, if not thousands, of email messages in this format. Maybe it can fit in here...

Susan S: I have been wondering for some time about the role of tradition. Paul wrote: "Each tradition comes to the table bearing unique theologies, philosophical questions, spiritual practice, and cultural assumptions and values."

Bruce S: Yes, I find myself in exactly that position. Was it Deborah Moldow who created that concept at the 1997 URI conference, "The Religion that is to Come"? I think that's my category, my "tradition".

Susan S: More people seem to be self-identifying as "interfaith" or "interspiritual." What does this mean - to them, to us? What are the implications as we try to talk about our "traditions"?

Bruce S: I've been experimenting in this area for a long time. For me, "interspiritual" is becoming less about ideas and concepts and doctrines and "beliefs" -- and more about attitudes and practices and "virtues". I tend to feel that religion is a kind of cultural shell that points towards and teaches a spirituality appropriate for that culture. These "shells" do vary widely -- just like languages and geographies -- but their spiritual teachings and practices (love one another, be humble, treat others with respect, see the divine in others) are found in most if not all.

Theodore: I have also found a perplexing difference between interfaith dialogue and questions of universal truth. Many teachers have said that all religions lead to the same goal. Many other teachers would disagree!

Bruce S: It was an eye-opening experience for me when I read the first words of the 1988 book, "The Future of the Body", by Essalen founder Michael Murphy:

We live only part of the life we are given. Growing acquaintance with once-foreign cultures, new discoveries about our subliminal depths, and the dawning recognition that each social group reinforces just some human attributes while neglecting or suppressing others, have stimulated a worldwide understanding that all of us have great potentials for growth.
The evidence assembled here [in this book] suggests that we harbor a range of capacities that no single philosophy or psychology has fully embraced, and that these can be developed by practicing certain virtues and disciplines and building institutions to support them. Though every enduring religion has affirmed something analogous to Judeo-Christian doctrines of grace, none has acknowledged the larger spectrum of grace that a collection of this kind begins to reveal.

Murphy is pointing towards a kind of universal meta-understanding -- that outlines the full range of human potential -- as illustrated by the diverse examples from around the world -- and then takes up the challenge of attempting to outline this emerging understanding.

Seeing the diversity in the world in this way, we don't have to see religious cultures in an "either/or" way -- but can simply see them as choosing to "reinforce just some human attributes while neglecting or suppressing others". Our concern today -- is to understand the full range of these attributes, rather than continue in the pattern of reinforcing some and suppressing others.

Theodore: I think people who are ready and willing to perceive unity among religions must have learned to see their own path as metaphorical, pointing beyond itself to something larger. Meanwhile other people remain divided, insisting on the particular truth of their own path, exclusive of others.

Bruce S: An idea that began to appear for me years ago -- is that we cannot say in an empirical way that there IS a "unity among religions" in a factual sense. The fact is, religions are diverse. But on the other hand, we can choose to see a unity -- or can strive towards conceptualizing a path towards unity. Understood this way, if there is any sort of unity among religions, it is a "synthetic" unity -- something we consciously and intentionally create. I think the outlines of this potential unity can be seen in a comprehensive overview of human potential, that studies and connects into a single model the full range of religious and mystical experience, taking into account the widely diverse reports from cultures everywhere.

Theodore: What's interesting to me is how much all of these attitudes depend less on one's religion and more on one's inner sense of reality. Is our fate governed by love or by cruel indifference? Does justice require punishment? Am I basically the same as you, or fundamentally estranged? I don't think dialogue can really resolve these questions, although it can demonstrate a lot of goodwill.

Bruce S: Yes -- perhaps a dialogue from multiple points of view, if conducted in a spirit that is guided by these kinds of (more or less) universal spiritual principles -- can lead to wise decisions on these issues. Maybe appropriate punishment is always context-dependent -- what was the situation, who was involved, etc. Are we "One" -- or "Many"? I think the "answer" is -- this question is a "holon" -- we are both a One AND a Many. We are the same -- AND different. This complementarity is part of the emerging new meta-perspective, it seems to me.

Paul C: Thanks for your interesting discussion, Theodore.

For me and many others, the issue of universal truth, or the definition of absolutes, feels like a futile task. One can say, with the Hindus, God is neither this nor that. But giving up a meta-unity doesn't leave us all claiming that our particular truth is one and only truth. Unity versus exclusivism is a false dichotomy, seems to me.

Bruce S: As my own experience has continued, I have become more comfortable with the idea of absolutes. In some of our network projects, we have been gathering up quotes and references materials -- and have found literally thousands of quotations that point towards the concept of Oneness -- suggesting how everything proceeds out of oneness in some way. It seems to me that most any world religious tradition does affirm the concept of Oneness in some way -- even if not monotheistic. The diversity -- comes from somewhere -- from a singular context that interconnects everything. That context, it seems to me -- takes a form very much akin to this emerging meta-view.

A lot of vital creativity in religion is driven by dissatisfaction and ferment. People feel that the existing traditions and cultures are not quite good enough. Something new is needed -- something that preserves what is valuable while discarding that which is misleading or destructive. It's a fine art, that perhaps should be informed by a wide range of perspectives. But for some of us -- this perspective is emerging -- and its essential characteristics are very simple.

Paul C: And if such a unity were to take hold, a million details and understandings and stories would be lost, to all our detriment.

Bruce S: Well -- depending on how this "taking hold" would occur -- I don't think I agree. Is the United States a "unified" place? Does the state of West Virginia lose its cultural uniqueness simply by being "one of fifty states"? This, too, is a "holon" -- a form that is both part and whole. Unity does not mean uniformity. Oneness is not monolithic. Intercultural bonds are formed, just as you suggest, by mutual respect, by love, by "sacred listening" -- by "co-creativity".

Paul C: An alternative is to depend on our own experience and tradition as a primary but not exclusive source of meaning and understanding, I can hold on to what makes most sense to me without making others wrong. I can practice within the boundaries of my own faith and still be open and engaged in the wisdom, truth, and beauty that is manifold in other traditions.

Bruce S: It seems that we are finding a real core unity among the diverse traditions -- but this unity is not conceptual or doctrinal. It's a spiritual unity, perhaps a "wordless" spiritual unity -- something that happens just beyond the grasp of words. It seems to me that this "Beyond Theology" project mentioned in the Pre-workshops features of the conference is pointing in the right direction: http://beyondtheology.tv -- or the workshop -- http://nain.org/2008/workshop.cfm?wks=100053

I am reminded of the NAIN logo -- the handshake extending across borders. A handshake is a wordless understanding, but it can also be a deep and important bond of understanding. Maybe this emerging new spirituality can interconnect people across boundaries in much the same way.

6.
Author: Rev. Paul Chaffee
Date: Saturday, May 31, 2008
Subject: Spirituality
ID: 100127
In reply to: 100106

Thanks for your interesting discussion, Theodore.

For me and many others, the issue of universal truth, or the definitation of absolutes, feels like a futile task. One can say, with the Hindus, God is neither this nor that. But giving up a meta-unity doesn't leave us all claiming that our particular truth is one and only truth. Unity versus exclusivism is a false dichotomy, seems to me.

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. And if such a unity were to take hold, a million details and understandings and stories would be lost, to all our detriment.

An alternative is to depend on our own experience and tradition as a primary but not exclusive source of meaning and understanding, I can hold on to what makes most sense to me without making others wrong. I can practice within the boundaries of my own faith and still be open and engaged in the wisdom, truth, and beauty that is manifold in other traditions.

7.
Author: Theodore Timpson
Date: Monday, May 12, 2008
Subject: Spirituality
ID: 100106

I have also found a perplexing difference between interfaith dialogue and questions of universal truth. Many teachers have said that all religions lead to the same goal. Many other teachers would disagree! I think people who are ready and willing to perceive unity among religions must have learned to see their own path as metaphorical, pointing beyond itself to something larger. Meanwhile other people remain divided, insisting on the particular truth of their own path, exclusive of others.

What's interesting to me is how much all of these attitudes depend less on one's religion and more on one's inner sense of reality. Is our fate governed by love or by cruel indifference? Does justice require punishment? Am I basically the same as you, or fundamentally estranged? I don't think dialogue can really resolve these questions, although it can demonstrate a lot of goodwill.

8.
Author: Rev. Susan Strouse
Date: Friday, April 11, 2008
Subject: Traditions
ID: 100094

I have been wondering for some time about the role of tradition. Paul wrote: "Each tradition comes to the table bearing unique theologies, philosophical questions, spiritual practice, and cultural assumptions and values."

But, while, some people in the interfaith movement insist that one must be grounded in one's own religious tradition, others say that is either not necessary or not possible (some have left a tradition or have never had one). More people seem to be self-identifying as "interfaith" or "interspiritual." What does this mean - to them, to us? What are the implications as we try to talk about our "traditions"?

9.
Author: Rev. Paul Chaffee
Date: Friday, April 4, 2008
Subject: Relationships
ID: 100093

Thank you for raising up RELATIONSHIPS as we begin this discussion, Judy.

Father Gerry O'Rourke, whom we fondly call our godfather in the Bay Area interfaith community, has had "relationships, relationships, relationships" as his personal mantra for years now.

The gift of vital, long-term relationships is that they signifiy something larger and more important than our differences. Another NAINConnect 2008 workshop is about a 20-year Christian-Wiccan friendship, which will confound those who say "they" will NEVER get it (whoever the 'they' is at the moment).

Interfaith friendship is powerful enough to heal cultural and racial wounds. It can transcend philosophical and theolgical differences, not ignoring them, but allowing us to learn from each other's assumptions and insights. It can evoke a level of firiendship that gives you hope for the world. And what does it require?

* Acceptance is absolutely better than tolerance.

* Respect, as Woody says, is basic, foundational, part of the necessary context.

* Feeling safe. The art of interfaith dialogue includes knowing how to create an environment of safety. The right to participate includes a commitment to everyone's safety. When everyone feels safe, our huge disparities no longer separate us, and we begin treating each other as human beings.

* The willingness to listen with an open heart.

* The willingness to share of yourself and what you value.

The list grows on as we forge vital new relationships with those who were strangers till now. End of the day, the gift is all about joy. The encounters and the friendships that develop resonate with the kind of satisfaction that doesn't fade away.

10.
Author: Judy Trautman
Date: Saturday, March 29, 2008
Subject: Relationships
ID: 100089

I have recently been hearing the word relationships in the interfaith/multifaith context. It really resonates with me.

Dirk Ficca, CEO of the Council for the Parliament of the Worlds Religions, makes a point that tolerance is not a very appropriate goal. If I tolerate you, I imply that I do not like you very much but that I will 'make nice'. Dirk prefers acceptance.

My husband Woody, who founded our MultiFaith Council of NW Ohio, always speaks for mutual respect as a goal.

Tarunjit Butalia at our MultiFaith Banquet spoke of relationship building being the useful work of interfaith groups. I think that is a very apt description of what we are attempting to do in Toledo.