With so many crises and dire needs these days, I need to connect this good article to some of them. One in particular is the rancorous division we have in the US right now… with no signs of it improving. A great deal of this is among Christians and between certain Christians and others. In this context, those who seek to be sure religious freedom is not curtailed, or are “defenders of the faith ” have particular responsibility to understand both Jesus and Paul. And to grasp and FOLLOW their example in making the gospel truly good news for everyone, not just those who view things similarly.
When I read Fleming Rutledge’s book, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus, I was struck with how much she focused on the thought of Paul the Apostle (as she interpreted it) and how little she paid attention to the life and teaching of Jesus. She presented her theology of salvation, in my opinion, in a clear and persuasive way. And I would say that she quite definitely takes her place square in the middle of the Christian tradition—Catholic and Protestant—that may broadly be categorized as Augustinian. That tradition, going back to the fifth-century Bishop of Hippo (the second most influential Christian theologian ever, after Paul himself), has been by far the dominant shaper of Christian theology in the West. Rutledge echoes the theological line from runs from Augustine through Anselm, Luther, Calvin, and down to Barth.
Sorry for the short notice, but if you are a leader in any of these (or other) areas, you should at least look over the topics and high-level presenters and moderators (for the substantial break-outs):
–Sustainability (farming and beyond)
–New Economic Models
–Education for Change
–Community Development
–Law and Governance
–Youth (advisement, education, etc.)
You may quickly realize that all six subject areas covered in the forum are interconnected. Significant advancement in any one or two requires advancement in all. THAT is our major challenge: Gaining momentum in multiple arenas simultaneously. Otherwise the inertia of other parts of the system overwhelms and will greatly impede progress in any segment.
This provides another reason to participate as many evenings as possible! (5 to 8 p.m. Pacific… sorry for the lateness if you’re Central or Eastern time.) Learn what’s happening broadly and how your mission can more fully support others’, meet lots of exciting leaders.
The descriptive subtitle of this delightful, practical book is “How to Grow a Spiritual Practice When Your Religion is Cracking Apart”. I’ve not read another book that blends the disruption of changing one’s beliefs (often while losing, for practical purposes, friends or even family members) with the calming, grounding effect of building up a meditative practice. I’ve not heard of such a sustained thematic weave in another book, either, though it may well exist.
The author, Jeff Campbell, is giving us an extended story of his own experience … finding himself adrift and anxious in the midst of his changing theology and relationships with his friends and church community. This is a situation familiar to tens of thousands of people, or more, in recent years. I went though that kind of situation myself around 25 years ago (gradually in my case, with relatively little trauma – I know it’s more intense for many, as it was for Jeff).
Campbell starts off immediately bringing reassurance to his readers that, if they are deeply disturbed, they will get through their “deconstruction” period and things will become calmer and clearer eventually. He rightly points out that deconstruction is more than a merely academic term… it has caught on widely. I read it used often when Christians (or former Christians, as self-labeled) speak of their process of doubt and revision of beliefs. However, I know of no precise definition for when questioning or changing certain beliefs becomes “deconstruction” and potential “reconstruction”. But the author shows well how it generally involves revision of relationships also, which can be the most emotionally challenging aspect.
Such a structure, as he skillfully applies it, makes the book valuable for virtually anyone… settled Christian, transitioning Christian (or person of other faith), or non-religious person. I doubt readers will be put off by Campbell’s sections discussing his own inner and community-of-faith challenges. And those reading mostly for those sections should not be put off by the meditative practices he copiously spreads throughout the book. There are 31 of these, and they are set apart from the main text plainly.
Thus they can be skipped for those not caring about them and preferring the rest of his story and insights. Reading this way, one will still learn about the role such positive habits of the mind and heart played in his healing and development. This includes life circumstances not related to religious beliefs or affiliations. There is some real drama to some of the on-the-job challenges Campbell faced, as a newcomer particularly, to the world of special education with older, sometimes violent kids.
The approach of Discovering the Essence is to interweave the theme of faith shifts with that of building a spiritual practice which has very little to do with theology – with one’s beliefs. Rather, the kind of practice Campbell guides readers to and significantly into is one of inner quieting and allowing peace (or even guidance) to enter. One can attribute the fruits of such a practice to God or some other source but that won’t change the results.
The detailed, specific guidance on the use of meditative practices and Campell’s wise advice not often found fills a significant need not being adequately covered by similar books, to my awareness. You will also be guided to the website he continues to add further practices and advice to…. the book and this are resources well worth a good look. You may find yourself using and benefiting from his examples. If you happen to be in a “faith shift” process but not much interested in meditative practice, there is good support and wisdom for you as well in Discovering the Essence.
If you have read or yet read this book, please come back and comment here; and I know the author will appreciate positive reviews posted to the publisher or any sales site featuring reviews.
I’ve added a concluding paragraph to my book review of the fascinating findings of the late psychologist, Michael Newton, found here. It includes thoughts on his methods and references to related research by prominent people.
I’ve recently posted a review of an important book for our highly divided times on my newer blog, SpiritualLifeQuest.com. I encourage you to click on the link below and read this short review. See whether the book might deserve to be on your “read next” list: https://spirituallifequest.com/a-house-united-book-review/
For church leaders, lay or clergy, I think it does deserve that designation, followed by getting and reading it, and then by pursuing a “coming together” in any of numerous ways the author illustrates.
I find it difficult to adequately promote my own work. Well, one new thing for my New Year is working on changing that. But enough on my own “issues”….
The work I’m promoting right now is one you may benefit from. And I’m making it very easy to look into and potentially obtain. (It’s my ebook pictured and linked [to the right] where it can be gotten for under a buck; with a link in my headings area to a synopsis if you’d like to read that first.)
What I want to reiterate from other summaries is that this is a book based heavily on my own faith journey but also what I’ve learned about that of others. My inter-related areas of formal study, plus ongoing interactions online and offline tell me that, if you are thinking through your own spiritual pilgrimage, you probably have a lot in common with me and with many others. (We tend to move through similar growth processes, though the paths in going there are totally individual.)
Here’s to a rewarding, “growthful” year of spiritual exploration!
Oh… If you find the “Spiritual Growth” book helpful, please do me the favor of even a very brief review of it on its marketplace (and here as well).
My readers and I would love to also hear what you are currently exploring or intend to in the upcoming year. Please share!
At Christmas time, we’re reminded of the perpetual human hope of “peace on earth” and goodwill toward one another.
Toward this, one thing we need to keep in line, within ourselves, is undue fear of the “other”. Unfortunately…
Perception often trumps reality…. and has real world consequences.
Some fascinating research shows an important aspect of this in current American society. It involves perceptions back and forth between white evangelical Protestants and atheists/agnostics. The study was a large 2019 survey and research comparison by Paul A. Djupe and Ryan Burge. It is found here, titled, “The Inverted Golden Rule: Are Atheists as Intolerant as Evangelicals Think They Are?”
Spoiler alert:
The simplified answer the data tells them is “No”… with some interesting twists. (It is worth a good look though the article and at the full picture, involving aspects I won’t go into here. It does get a bit complex.)
They had my curiosity with “Inverted Golden Rule”. The article author, Djupe, says it means “expect from others what you would do unto them”. In other words, you perceive in someone else the intentions that are actually yours, and may not be theirs. I’d call it a form of what is often called projection… projecting onto the “screen” of others what comes from inside ourselves.
We have this tendency strongly already. As Djupe points out, it can then be amplified by the voices of pundits. In this case, they either have stronger-than-average fears of not being tolerated or are merely happy to use the fears of others to their advantage in gaining (or keeping) a large audience.
Now, this can work on either side of a religious or political divide. However, the survey numbers in the article note a significantly stronger fear among evangelical Protestants of being “shut down” (particularly on first amendment rights) than would clearly seem to be warranted. At the same time, atheists and agnostics are not as concerned, even though white evangelicals express relatively less political tolerance of them than vice versa.
At the end, Djupe draws the political conclusion that this dynamic is part of why this sub-set of Christians feels strongly about the need for “… keeping Trump and his party in power”.
What do you think? Does this make sense to you? If not, why not?
The Universal Christ is subtitled How a Forgotten Reality can Change Everything We See, Hope for, and Believe. Both title and subtitle are strongly descriptive of the book. It deals with a broad range of issues from Christian history, particularly of its mystical thread, to personal spiritual development – from personal to community and inner to outer life.
Along the way Fr. Rohr says he purposely incorporates insights from psychology, science, history, anthropology (and I’d add Buddhism, with other worldview systems)…. fields he is clearly conversant with though admittedly not the major focus of his fifty-year career (as a Franciscan priest), as are philosophy and spiritual theology. This conscious integration is important. Everyone believes or teaches from some form of integration, but when it is unconscious and unexamined, it may actually be detrimental to oneself or others. It may come from the distortions of one’s own inner wounds, insatiable drives or teaching received. These are aspects of our “shadow side” which Rohr repeatedly reminds us must be faced. For him, contemplative practice is part of this process, engaging ourselves while also engaging God.
Out of Rohr’s in-depth education, guidance of others, and his own lifelong contemplative practice, emerge jewels of wisdom. They take the form of many quotable phrases and sections. A notable early one:
If my own experience is any indication, the message in this book can transform the way you see and the way you live in your everyday world. It can offer you the deep and universal meaning that Western civilization seems to lack and long for today. It has the potential to reground Christianity as a natural religion and not one simply based on a special revelation, available only to a few lucky enlightened people. (page 6)
Shortly after this statement, Rohr gives us a good summary of his main point about the effects of his, and others’, understanding of the concept of Christ (taken from a Jewish title, “anointed one” or “messiah”, not a name):
A cosmic notion of the Christ competes with and excludes no one, but includes everyone and everything (Acts 10:15, 34) and allows Jesus Christ to finally be a God figure worthy of the entire universe. In this understanding of the Christian message, the Creator’s love and presence are grounded in the created world, and the mental distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” sort of falls apart. (page 7)
Shortly into the first of two major “parts” of the book, Rohr makes clear what will be a repeated point – that he thinks “Christ” refers not to mere abstract “ideas and concepts”, which “might well communicate the Christ Mystery [italics his]… but “‘Christ’ for me refers to ideas that have specifically ‘become flesh’ (John 1:14)….” (page 13, including footnote)
Let me fast forward all the way to the second appendix of the book, on “The Pattern of Spiritual Transformation”. It might have been good to have this as part of an introduction given that I see the book as primarily about the process of growth for individuals, for Christian communities and for broader society, even globally. Now, the author does address points of resistance and important processes in our spiritual growth throughout the book, but this 5-page section is particularly clear, significant, and I believe helpful (as one who has studied and written a short book on spiritual growth myself). I fear that at least some readers may skip any appendix, not realizing it (or the two of them, in this book) may be integrally tied to and important for the full message of the book. If you get this book, either read this early or read to the end – Rohr saved some of the best for last!
Between the early and ending material I’ve highlighted, The Universal Christ covers a lot of deep waters. Some I’m sure would argue that Rohr has betrayed the orthodox positions of his Roman Catholicism. This may be a valid charge, and something he seems to take seriously but is unafraid about, either in terms of his reputation or the effects on his readers. I’ve not read full books by Rohr for many years (though read articles and heard him speak), but I gather that he has put forward points similar to those in the book in previous books and other expressions. Given his long ministry of counseling and providing spiritual direction, he seems quite aware of the thinking patterns and emotional reactions of people at various levels of growth or in positions of authority. He addresses these repeatedly, seeking to draw others beyond binary, black/white, absolutist thinking. He realizes his concepts about the meaning of Jesus’ life and death and how the “universal Christ” is connected are not simplistic. They require a certain breadth of perception and maturity of thinking process, whether or not they are “correct”.
I have some concern that he may be hoping for a good number of readers who are mainly binary-thinkers, and I hope he gets at least some. However, I fear it is unlikely many of them will either pick up the book, or, if so, read very far into it. This is one reason I mentioned it may have helped some to put the appendix on the growth process close to the front of the book, perhaps stimulating a bit more self-awareness and openness to where one might be headed, and why.
My only other critique of the structure and content of the book is that I feel it could have communicated its basic messages in half or two-thirds the length, and thus been an easier read, especially for the merely curious or those he clearly seeks to draw into a more contemplative and less rigid approach to their faith.
Almost everyone is aware of the reality of a rapidly changing climate… the damage it’s already done and the serious threat it carries for our future. A strong majority also believes, based on lots and lots of solid science, that it is largely human-caused. (There is no good evidence not to believe this, despite the efforts of special interest propaganda and political lobbying.)
Where greater controversy comes is in how and how aggressively to fight climate change. Quickly pulled into the controversy is our idea of building “civilization”. Until recently, “development” (a sort of code word) of civilization has presumed more of the same use of resources, including non-renewable and polluting ones such as fossil fuels.
Of course, there are political moves toward shifting energy sources, particularly for lowering the release of carbon and the greenhouse gas, CO2. What is less visible are efforts underway to shift the broader systems of “civilization” toward sustainability, both short and long-term.
This involves a more thoughtful, planned integration of civilization with ecology… not sacrificing key benefits of development of economies and a better “standard of living” for those who particularly need it, but doing development in ecologically sustainable ways.
One of the leading organizations is the aptly-named Institute for Ecological Civilization or EvoCiv for short (found here). I have used their logo and website home screen graphics above, with permission.
EcoCiv is a natural outgrowth of the emphasis one aspect of progressive Christianity, Process theology, has maintained for decades on ecological issues. This, and the broader agenda of Process as a movement of sorts, is an ecumenical and interfaith endeavor. It also has sought collaboration with secular institutions and efforts.
One expression of this I experienced with a degree of awe about 4 years ago… a large conference called “Seizing an Alternative: Toward an Ecological Civilization”. This was held at the renowned set of Pomona Colleges, adjacent to the Claremont School of Theology (home of the Center for Process studies, etc.). Some of the awe came from the sheer size and broad representation of the conference… over 1500 people, mostly academics and activists from all over the world, and representing a number of disciplines of science and the humanities, with a prominent presence of Chinese nationals – academics, activists, and even government officials. I wrote about the conference here and here.
Let me briefly update my remarks in those previous posts about finding very few Evangelicals or people affiliated with Evangelical churches or institutions, such as the many small private colleges throughout the country: I’ve since discovered some active efforts among Evangelicals on climate and ecology issues, generally under terms such as “Creation Care” (existing previously to my belated discovery). For example, the Lausanne Movement and the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) have joined in broadening the Creation Care Task Force which was begun by the WEA in 2012. The Creation Care page on the WEA website states this:
“After several years of fruitful collaboration the WEA Creation Care Task Force and Lausanne Creation Care joined together to co-lead one unifed creation care network called the Lausanne/WEA Creation Care Network (LWCCN).”
Now… the short answer to my title question on ecological civilization: YES!
And longer: If it is not “the” path to planetary survival, it is certainly a path we must go down! The world, like it or not, has become a highly interlinked, though massive “community”. This is not just political “globalization”.
This level of community, and the ecological civilization we’re speaking of here, is something deeper, healthier, and more “for the common good” than what is generally meant by globalization (more a trade and international relations term). It also is not meant to imply “Western” civilization, under the implication that “developing” countries should be catching up to what has been developed mainly in Europe and North America… or emulating us overall, though perhaps with greater use of renewable energy sources.
Ecological civilization necessarily works for everyone, not just the elite or those particularly gifted or privileged by social location. For this reason, it will grow out of mechanisms, already designed and operating in certain locations – particularly towns and cities of moderate size – which use informed “citizen cabinets” and deliberative processes to find creative solutions. These are applied at a given level from hyper-local to national and even international. (It’s certainly a long way from current USA state political processes – with possible exception of Alaska – and USA national politics. But this does not mean it is unreachable! There are serious and viable efforts underway.)
The final point I’ll add here is that people, particularly those pursuing or teaching in higher education, should be aware that an academic discipline (or “sub-discipline”) exists dealing with ecological civilization specifically. The EcoCiv site describes this briefly here. This well organized and relatively short article I highly recommend reading. It is in everyday language, so one need not have pertinent academic background.
One of the reasons I celebrate the development of this kind of academic research and application is that it is highly interdisciplinary. By its nature and vision/goals, it requires integration of areas of study generally kept in separate silos, rarely communicating or seeking out cooperation. It also serves as a key bridge, on various levels, between the discoveries of research and those who can apply the research, whether in business, governance, religious practices and communities, or wherever.
What can you add from your own related involvements, or knowledge that I, or my readers here, should know about? What inspiration might you offer? Your comments are desired!
This post from three years ago takes us from the past century of Christian faith to its first century. This last century was highlighted early by the now-largely-forgotten but then-greatly-followed Scopes “Monkey Trial” of 1925.
You’ll see below that the same natural-supernatural conflict of 1925 actually sits “between the lines” of the birth of Christian faith in its first century. There is also the familiar conflict and anxiety over “where is society going?” in both centuries. I hope you enjoy this re-post as well as the rest of the series surrounding it….
In parts 1 – 3 (here, here, and here), we’ve taken a high altitude look at the often-warring “ways to truth” of supernaturalism and naturalism. These are represented mainly by traditional Christianity and science. The passionate competition between them is not always obvious. Only certain writers and certain issues bring it to the surface.
Among the issues, perhaps the creation–evolution debate is most significant and heated. The year 1925, nearly a century past now, was a key marker, already well into this great cultural struggle. That year was the famed “Scopes Trial” (so named for the science teacher defendant, Mr. Scopes). This “monkey trial” pitted famous secular attorney, Clarence Darrow, against a very popular political and Christian leader who had been three times acandidate for President, William Jennings Bryan.
The issue: teaching evolution in public school. Technically the anti-evolution case (Bryan) prevailed. But in effect, “evolution” (Darrow) won. Apparently the showing of “creationism” wasn’t pretty. (I’ve not bothered to check how Bryan argued the case.) The main point is that things seem to remain at about the same state in this stand-off, after all this time. Emotions are still often high on both sides – whether on evolution-creation specifically or any of several, sometimes related issues.
Now if 100 years is not really a long time in terms of the progress of paradigms, maybe 2000 years isn’t either! I’d argue that is the case! Supernaturalism, in our sense here of two distinct tiers or “way things work” within the universe, is older than that. But let’s use the beginning of Christianity as a meaningful marking point for current-day supernaturalist thinking.
So what caused the emergence of Christianity out of Judaism? This is a massive topic itself, which we can deal with only in broad strokes here, without the scholarship of documentation. I will say, however, that out of passion to understand, I have spent many hundreds (if not thousands) of hours deeply exploring this subject, particularly in the last decade. I’m not merely repeating common conceptions which are often misconceptions. So…
Where did the New Testament (NT) writers get the ideas that went into this new religion?
The answer is complex but it’s accurate to simplify things by saying it was mainly “revelation” and expectation of the “appearance” of the Messiah. The latter is often called the “return of Christ”. The more accurate rendering of the Greek is “appearance” or “presence”, and “Christ” is merely Greek for the Hebrew “Messiah”. So the point is “appearance of the Messiah”. Or we might add, for Jesus’ original Jewish followers, “(re)appearance of Jesus as Messiah” (rather than defeated on a cross).
The two key concepts of revelation and Jesus’ victorious status are interlinked, particularly in St. Paul’s case… where we get the biggest influence on Christian theology. It appears the original Apostles’ expectation was significantly different than Paul’s. They expected fulfillment of Hebrew scriptural visions of a Jerusalem-centered Kingdom of God blessing the world through Yahweh, the Jewish God, administering Jewish law. The Messiah was his human “Anointed One” (meaning of “Messiah”). Paul, not having known the human Jesus, saw him as a cosmic savior. This involved a very different nature, status and effect of messiahship: breaking down all meaningful Jewish-Gentile distinctions (though still retaining “privilege” of heritage and such). Paul brought a new focus on inward spiritual transformation by believers’ identification with Christ (Messiah).
Paul makes the point repeatedly that his information about the heavenly Christ (he spends almost no time on the earthly Jesus) came by direct revelationto him. He declares he did not get it from any human source. It was about visions and being transported to heavenly places, with him unable to tell if bodily or only spiritually (2 Corinthians 12).
Now it happens that I believe people sometimes do receive “revelations”, often beneficial, and in extraordinary ways. Maybe visions or auditory messages. Or the much-studied and very real-seeming experiences of a “near death” or clinical death situation, and other ways. In believing this I needn’t be a “supernaturalist”. I don’t have to separate their source out as above-and-beyond the “natural world”. And I can still allow for “God” (or a universal “mind”) to be involved, utilizing natural processes still little understood by us. I know they gradually are being better observed and understood.
But St. Paul, like most ancient Jews and pagans, conceived a powerfully intervening God within a dualistic (what I’m calling two-tier)reality. The most common current view of God is similar.
Although Paul contributed specifics of theology beyond other NT writers, it seems clear that his “founding” contemporaries, the other Apostles, also “inherited” (in Hebrew Scriptures and strong religious traditions) expectations of Messiah’s arrival. He would be a God-anointed special human (certainly not divine). In the late Greek and early Roman period in Palestine, many candidates were identified and often rooted out and killed by the occupiers. For the Jews, these were desperate times that called for desperate measures.
Back to the other Apostles and followers of Jesus: after resurrection appearances they expected his soon “return”. And so it has been passed on down to our day. (In my view, such appearances were visionary only, as actual historical evidence to the contrary is missing and the supposed “evidence” more than dubious, despite what Christian apologists claim… I know, I used to be one of them.)
These other Jerusalem-based leaders, in a similar way to Paul, combined messianic expectations with faith in revelations to remain Jesus followers after his death. (Paul had his vision a few years, not days or weeks, after Jesus’ death and never spent much time in Jerusalem.) From indications both by Paul and Luke (in Acts), these initial “Christians” actually remained a mostly-acceptable sect of Messianic Judaism, not an unusual thing at that time. For simplicity, however, let’s lump their influence together with that of Paul and others as to the emergence of mainly-Gentile Christianity. (There was a fairly lengthy period of it and a distinctly Jewish Christianity existing together.)
To me, a good part of the sorely-needed solution of a 3rd paradigm mediating between naturalism and supernaturalism comes this way: Respecting the roles of both mythology and history. In the case of Christianity, mythology includes quasi-historical accounts supposedly anchoring theology in history. [More on this later.] “Myth” includes but is not merely fiction… one might say it is a sort of trinity: psychology, anthropology and theology. For its part, history as a discipline uses rigorous methodology reflecting science though it is not “hard science” and never fully objective. But it can and should critique that quasi-history portion of any history-based religion such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Recognizing “the power of myth” neither denigrates it nor accords it the supernatural status claimed by Christian concepts of revelation. By this I mean particularly revelation to authoritative figures such as Apostles or later-recognized prophets, as this became Scripture (divinely revealed “Truth”). Recognizing myth, however does call us to what is very challenging to even face, let alone do in depth: examine the very founding-and-operating myths of our own views of the world, whether “religious” or “scientific” or some combination.
What we will look at in our next part will be more depth on the “myth of origin” in the story of earliest Christianity… how it seeks to explain things yet has distorted reality in the process. We’ll explore how the linkage of revelation and authority was necessary and sets views of the world almost as solidly as concrete.
2018 addition: How well does the above line up with what you’ve heard or come to believe about the founding of Christianity and the truth about “the Resurrection of Christ”?
Natural Spirituality - Loving Forum for Spiritual Harmony & Growth 