Could I become a Christian? (Ryan’s Story)
Jim March 10th, 2010
I was raised “Christian” (in all the various interpretations and misrepresentations of that vaguest of possible terms). Then I became an agnostic, then an atheist, then…well, now, these names seem pretty funny to me. Mostly these names, which are meant (perhaps) to designate meaning, really steal meaning if we don’t qualify what we mean by them. What I mean is that these words are for the most part used to prop up power, gain influence, maintain ignorance and perpetuate blind-servitude. Especially the word “Christian”. The others make sense only in relation to what we define God as. Of course, all words and all things that exist exist only in relation to some other thing. So meaning is relational, and so, relative. But this does not mean that meaning does not exist. Far from it. Just that meaning must always be ascertained from the fullest context(s) available.
But as I just said I was raised a Christian, that is, God exists as some white bearded guy reclining in the clouds. He’s all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. He created all that exists, he needs 10% of your monthly income, and used to really like the smell of burning meat, but has since given it up (except in certain rarified circumstances). God, when he finally decides (his coming has been eminent for some time now apparently), will punish all those who decided not to obey him by casting them in a lake of fire, in which they will burn forever and ever. And those who obeyed him will bask in his glory forever and ever in some vague place that is supposed to contain ultimate bliss. Oh, and he had a son too, by a virgin named Mary.
Apparently she was “chosen” and the Holy Spirit (a more mysterious part of God) came to her and impregnated her somehow (of course, virgin births wasn’t new by then, there was Buddha 500 years before, who in some stories was born of a virgin, Hunahpu and Xbalanque, Huitzilopochtli, Lao Tzu, Dionysius, Athena and many more …). Joseph, her soon to be husband, wasn’t that happy at first, but eventually he came around to the idea. And then Jesus, the son of God, was finally born. Which completes the Holy Trinity (if you want to get technical, and I do, Christianity is sort of a polytheistic religion and not monotheistic at all, and if you really want to get more technical it’s incestuous too, since God is both the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, he, in the form of the Holy Spirit, impregnated his own mother, Mary, but that’s only if you want to get technical, and I do).
Now of course, this story has more plot holes in it than the last Star Wars trilogy (which is probably not that surprising since it owes some if its plot elements from the Gospels, Anakin Skywalker being a virgin birth himself). Of course, there are certainly more absurdities and I can go in to much greater detail on any of the above but that’s not the point at all. One can argue ANY of these points till the cows come home, provide alternate interpretations of the narrative(s) but again that’s not the point.
The point I came to in my late teens was simply this: it is a story (which first, I think, swayed me to become agnostic, and very quickly thereafter, an atheist). Being a story about such things as it speaks of, it holds no more empirical or epistemic validity than does a story like Beowulf or Gilgamesh or pink elephants. But once I realized that the literal interpretations of these stories were absurd and ultimately not helpful to me, then the real work began. I was condemned to deeper meaning. How can the stories be valid at all? How can they be meaningful in some sense to me?
I studied every religion I knew about, I read the Bible 3 times (just to make sure, Hell is a powerful idea after all) along with many many many commentaries by Christian thinkers both premodern, modern and postmodern. I read the very tedious Koran once. I read the many many many Buddhist sutras along with hundreds of books by Buddhist scholars and practitioners. I read the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Poetic Edda, the Prose Edda and, of course, read the works of many philosophers and scientists.
And then I read some Stephen King. You can’t read serious stuff all the time you know. But after reading all these things and reading the great literature of the world one learns something very valuable: that we evolve and have evolved and will, if we don’t blow ourselves up, evolve again. We have evolved both physically, morally, spiritually, socially, etc. But the same “religious” (pardon the use of yet another vague term, here I simply mean it in its original Greek context, religio- meaning to link back, as in the passing down of some ritual or narrative) terminology always was dragged with us. Which is fine as far as it goes.
But we have neglected to redefine these terms in light of new discoveries in science, philosophy, ethics, and art. And most of the issues some of us have with religion, or God, can be solved with just a little agreement on our terms. We might not agree on what God is, but we can at least be clear on what we mean when we say the word God. This, I think, can alleviate a lot of confusion and allow real, more meaningful communication to begin.
So, after a ten odd year quest I’ve come to this idea: God has evolved too. Once God was (at least in western culture) pretty much what I described above, the old white guy with a long white beard in the clouds judging humanity, sending the good ones to Heaven and the bad ones to Hell. But this idea of God, we no longer find interesting, or even valid. Children are climbing the early developmental stages at a much faster rate than did their ancestors. They’re hitting the rational level at around 13 or 14 now. Quick. This means that the mythic idea of God they are discarding for some other idea of God, or discarding God altogether (and all this while their hormones are raging out of control which makes for interesting times). And sadly, in our postmodern culture there is seemingly no room for both God and rationality. There is of course, but I’ll get to that a little later.
“God is dead,” Nietzsche informed us in 1883. It finally made the cover of the New York Times in 1966 (good news travels fast, I guess). Well, frankly, no shit, Freddy. But it is only the mythic God that has died, that is, the God that says there is only absolute notions of good and evil and no in-between, that if you don’t do what I say you will burn in Hell forever. Good riddance to that God most will say. And for good reason. But this idea of God is the only thing that has died, not the idea of God! And remember, we must be careful when talking about large populations who believe this or that, because we are talking about developmental sequences, which is ever shifting.
But we do know this: right now 70% of the world believes in some notion of that kind of mythic God, and that population is still ethnocentric, which means that they are likely to believe and say things like, “my country right or wrong; my race right or wrong; my religion is right and everyone else’s is wrong; my God is the only God and everyone else’s is false…you get the idea. Basically, this is the same developmental level that allowed Nazis to gain power in Germany and cause the murder of more than six million Jews. Scary. Just a nudge left or right and we’re talking about potential genocide.
These people are not yet at the rational stage. But those who are, at least in the West, are between a rock and a hard place because in our postmodern world (postmodernism is dead, it’s just that few people know about it) they are given the choice of no God or a mythic God. And, of course, given the choice they obviously would rather deal without a God than that mythic God! I mean, look at all the trouble we have from the mythic idea of God, all the holy wars, all the near genocides, all the intolerances, the persecutions, etc. and all in God’s name. For every year of peace throughout human history we have endured 14 years of war…and all over this mythic notion of God.
Life’s hard enough without having to worry about all that. But here’s the good news as I see it. God is an ever changing construct that is real. And very briefly God is this: God is what was before the beginning, before the Big Bang, the Eternal, whatever power or force, that started off all that we know and see in the universe, and what will be after the universe (or multiverse) finally ends. That is God. And we can name this as simply Spirit. But any name will do. Call it cheese puffs. Call it flooky poo poo. Doesn’t matter. This divinity won’t get offended (how can you offend God?). And Spirit kicked off evolution too, which is simply Spirit-in-action. There is teleology to evolution, direction, purpose. Since the Big Bang the universe has evolved into more and more complex systems. It has become more holistically embracive, more moral, more spiritual, more loving, and more compassionate. It is meandering to be sure, but it has a direction and it is up.
God is becoming more God-like. In a physical sense look at it this way: first there was matter, then life, then molecules, atoms, cells, cell systems, organs, organ systems… consciousness…) And the more depth that is disclosed the more spiritual anything is. And since spirit discloses depth and ever reaches for richer meaning, by this definition of God, science is even spiritual. In fact, a scientist who attempts to cure the world of disease from universal concern and care is far more spiritual than say, a fundamentalist preacher, who preaches that if we don’t believe in his God (his version of the story) we are going to Hell. So, you see, God will always exist, but the idea of what God is will always evolve as we grow more conscious of both our selves, the universe we live in, and the divine interplay between inner worlds and outer worlds (our consciousness and the world). At the end of the day God is all that is. And this includes us.
But having taken the path I have I can’t help but wonder, knowing now what I do about the world, the universe, could I ever become a Christian again? What circumstances would have to take place for that to occur? But I realize that that is to beg the question. Because I, of course, could never be that Christian that I was raised to become any more than I could revert back to the consciousness I had when I was five years old. I think of how Christianity is largely practiced today, with little authenticity, little transformation, and I wonder could there be a place for me in the fold somewhere again. The answer is, of course, no. Is there a Christian church that would have the same experiences that I have had (I say experiences instead of beliefs because beliefs require no work on the part of the believer, only obedience, likewise I distinguish between faith and hope: faith is born out of ignorance, having no experience of the divine or very little; and hope as having experience of the divine as it arises in the mind as the world, the universe, the beautiful, the true, the good, etc.). The answer is still, of course, no.
I believe that if there is not a major transformation is consciousness in the next 20 years, or at the very least a translation of consciousness, then I sincerely think Christianity will not be around, the same goes for Judaism and Islam (all have the same God for those of you keeping score). There are innovators to be sure, those luminous thinkers of those 3 religions that have worked within the religions at a high level of consciousness/awareness, but they are few indeed and will only be truly appreciated in the years to come when that 70% catches up with them. Right now they are just the heretics.
Today I consider myself a Buddhist more than anything else. But that’s only if someone held a gun to my head. I don’t really concern myself with labels anymore (at least as far as my own spiritual orientation). Buddhism is the sanest religion, I think. No dogma, consequently no blind belief system, no archaic God, only the prerational, rational and transrational mind in direct contact with the divine. That’s it. But that’s not to say it doesn’t have its problems. Those 70% we talked about earlier are Buddhists too.
But what is different with Buddhists rather than Christians is that the leaders of the Buddhist religion practice it from a rational and transrational awareness. And this is important. This is why I think Buddhism is so popular with those at a rational level of awareness in the world. It’s light years ahead of any other religion being practiced today. It’s like one philosopher said speaking of the validity of all religions: “All religions are true, especially Buddhism!” Buddhism (and all its many flavors) is the foremost light in the religious world. On the qualitative alone it is superlative among the other religions. But the remarkable thing about Buddhism (and the secret of its longevity) is that you can be Christian, Muslim, or Jewish and still be a Buddhist. Buddhism is dogma free, and so, its truths can be integrated into whatever religion you identify yourself most with. The important thing is your own consciousness, not what you believe.
So I was reading one of my favorite philosophers today and I found something very interesting. He had found a way to be a Christian, yet not sacrificed his rationality. And though we would have some conceptual discussion on a couple of our identical terms, it does not render his words any less fit or sublime. Cornel West said this:
“To be human is to suffer, shudder and struggle courageously in the face of inevitable death. To think deeply and wisely as a human being is to meditate on and prepare for death. The quest for human wisdom requires us to learn how to die–penultimately in the daily death of bad habits and cruel viewpoints and ultimately in the demise of our earthly and temporal bodies. To be human, at the most profound level, is to counter honestly the inescapable circumstances that constrain us, yet muster the courage to struggle compassionately for our own unique individualities and for more democratic and free societies. This courage contains the seeds of lived history–of memory, maturity and melioration–in the face of no guaranteed harvest. Hence, my view of what it means to be human is preeminently existential–a focus on particular, singular, flesh-and-blood persons grappling with dire issues of death, dread, despair, disease and disappointment. Yet I am not an existentialist like the early Sartre, who had a systematic grasp of human existence. Instead, I am a Chekhovian Christian who banks his all on radical–not rational–choice and on the courage to love enacted by a particular Palestinian Jew named Jesus, who was crucified by the powers that be, betrayed by cowardly comrades and misconstrued by corrupt churches that persist, and yet is remembered by those of us terrified and mesmerized by the impossible possibility of his love.”
I could be that kind of Christian.
- Uncategorized
- Comments(26)
Yes, Yes and YES! I have been so turned off by “Organized Religions”…the ones that need your money to build bigger Buildings, Padded Pews, fancy smancy kitchens and “Life” Centers. We should be OUT THERE helping real people with real problems, not sitting back in a nice comfy Church building, nodding our heads in agreement with the Preacher while the Collection Plate is passed around. More People would find God just by a simple Kindness shown to them. God is Love….so let’s get out there and Love Everybody!!!!
I appreciate his candor, his journey, his conclusions, he has obviously given it a lot of thought, a lot of time. He said ‘I believe that if there is not a major transformation is consciousness in the next 20 years, or at the very least a translation of consciousness, then I sincerely think Christianity will not be around’. Few truly comprehend the following distinction, the truth that Christ (himself) is actually ‘Christianity’ that Christianity is a Person, not a mere belief system or another religious faith. This means Truth is actually a Person, Love is actually a Person, etc. So this eliminates the ‘practicing’ thereof, all the grueling, unfruitful ’self efforting’ to change, etc and all that’s left is the liberating, grace-filled experience of being progressively swallowed up whole in the life of Another who paradoxically lives within and also happens to be Love, Truth, Peace, etc. This is true ‘Christianity’. And since Christ is uncreated, is eternal, is spirit then this ‘Christianity’ can never truly die, but I understand what he meant, that unless something changes, the ‘practice’ of Christianity as we know it will eventually be found by most to have little transformative power, little value. The truth of the gospel, ie Christ in us, as our life is little understood. All the best.
Ryan – Gosh, there is so much here. And there is so much you wrote that I agree with you about. I feel as though if you and I met in a coffee shop, we could go for hours on all of the points you spoke about, and it would be awesome! Indeed, I see a lot of my journey in your journey. The biggest difference is that I am Jewish. But, my path has taken me through quite similar religious terrain and back again.
.
I share your ambivalence about organized religion and about labels! I am passionately on your side here. In fact, it is because I feel I can relate so closely to what you wrote that I nearly feel you may be one of my dear friends under pseudonym.
.
If you’ll allow me to respond as a friend, therefore – of I suspect similar age and experience – I’d like to respectfully say that I find your generalizations here to be clumsy and unkind.
.
For instance, this one:
.
“Buddhism is the sanest religion, I think. No dogma, consequently no blind belief system, no archaic God, only the prerational, rational and transrational mind in direct contact with the divine.”
.
I, like you, have absorbed a terrific amount of Buddhism in my journey, and my respect for it is awesome! You do include Buddhism in your 70%, which is valid because a huge part of the Buddhist world is theistic, liturgical, hierarchical, and patriarchal. I think your deference to Buddhism is connected to its Westernized flavor, which is hybrid, and which has the advantage of its ranks being occupied primarily by seekers.
.
As someone who loves and has been greatly influenced by Buddhism, I’m merely saying that your comparison is over-generalized and unfair.
.
Anyway, perhaps your cynicism about Christianity is more fierce because you grew up in it. Whereas I – who am not Christian – tend to be a bit more cynical about my birth-tradition. Still, again, your criticism seems leveraged against the charismatic / evangelical movement, and ignores the authentic spirituality that exists in the mature and passion-filled churches that have better things to do than make converts, collect tithes, and build membership roles. I have been in such churches, and they are places where ministers are in place not because they are articulate orators, but because they are dedicated to holiness. Some of them are churches where sermonizing is beside the point; where it is the power of ritual that draws people in towards the infinite. Some have gay pastors. Some are lay-driven.
.
Again, your distrust of Christianity doesn’t consider denominations like the Society of Friends (have you ever been to one of their unprogrammed worship services??), which rests on a spirit of collective openness, mutual sharing, and receptivity to the inspiration of the transcendent within. Many Quakers would see no contradiction in calling themselves both agnostics AND Christians.
.
What you’ve covered here has been worked out by Robert Wright in his book: “The Evolution of God”. It is a stimulating way to consider how our concepts of deity have changed over time. But this very transience should inculcate a sense of humility in us in the face of mystery, don’t you think? Sometimes our confidence in deconstructing theology trips us into arrogance before the genuine experience of others and how they relate to the transcendent.
.
I guess the bone I’m picking with you is that you’re dismissing the sincere experience of many, many Christians (and Muslims and Jews). I honor and validate your journey, Ryan, but I also honor the religious experience of all those who are finding in any religion the strength to be kind, open, loving, dedicated, honest, and real.
.
By the way: You say that Buddhism is dogma free. There is much about Buddhism that you have not yet encountered. I myself am drawn to those sects and traditions in Buddhism that are dogma-full. And they are plenty-full, to be sure. (Check out Shin Buddhism, for instance.)
.
Others who have hung around the Divine Nobodies blog and Jim’s Facebook page have called themselves “shedders”. A label like any other, but a label that I would identify with myself – which makes me an ironic person to stand up for organized religion. A short time ago, Jim P. drew our attention to a T-Shirt that said that Christianity is not Jesus’ fault. I loved it! Thought about buying one. But I want to remind myself, too, that Christianity is not monolithic. There is so much beauty and variety in its shimmering and ever-changing incarnations. This is true of Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism as well, by the way; and even in their most orthodox and entrenched manifestations. Because people and their faith experiences are flesh and struggle, hope and wonder, fear and despondency, contradiction and integrity all balled together in the fuzzy and funky packages that make up our wacky selves.
.
You show me the MOST superficial, money-grubbing, entertainment proffering, regressive-teaching, personality driven, faith-healing, legend-believing charismastic megachurch and I will show you a place full of real people who are capable of as much kindness as anyone else, and as deserving of respect and appreciation for themselves – AND their beliefs – as you or I.
.
You end your essay with this AWESOME quote by Cornell West, and by saying that you could be “that kind” of Christian. I submit to you that as long as you and I are placing ourselves above “[those kinds]” of Christians or Jews, Buddhists or Hindus, we’re not making much progress.
.
Irreverence can often be reverent, Ryan. But it can also be unfair. One skeptic, seeker, and shedder to another, let’s choose to lift people up, brother. Cause tearing things down is way too easy.
Well, I liked Ryan’s story. Anything that helps loosen things up here is good value. I can’t see that he hates anyone so why should he be taken to task? Surely we are mature enough to see past that petty stuff and can let our opinions and observations hang out a bit more than what we have in the past? We should be able to experience peace and love etc. while that is going on.
.
John C you said that peace, love, and truth is a person. I used to see it that way a long time ago but it didn’t quite do the trick. It created a separation – it keeps people in their heads as they try to work this righteousness out. As such it is still a belief system. To get around that we can actually take it further. Let’s assume we are his “body” so why not try peace, love, truth, life and the way as simply being “us” – that is once we become more real and frank with each other. When we do that between us all those things will begin to manifest. I have seen it – in fact many times. Joy and freedom will come through too.
.
And Joel we don’t have to worry about tearing things down. They have to come down anyway and a little help from us won’t do any harm because what do we have left? Those qualities I have previously named (within “us”) will begin to surface and I defy anyone to tear them down – it’s impossible! And all we need to do to get there is some good open-hearted talking. Then we’ll see people lifted up – with the real stuff!
For me, this is the heart of what Ryan has said, even though he was speaking of another:
“I am a Chekhovian Christian who banks his all on radical–not rational–choice and on the courage to love enacted by a particular Palestinian Jew named Jesus, who was crucified by the powers that be, betrayed by cowardly comrades and misconstrued by corrupt churches that persist, and yet is remembered by those of us terrified and mesmerized by the impossible possibility of his love.”
Joel, I think you’re right about a lot of things (especially spending hours talking about these things in a coffee shop!
). I think we probably agree more than we disagree. And you’re criticisms you’ve pointed out in my post are valid. But I think there are certain things I might should have qualified a bit more to clear things up. There is dogma in Buddhism of course if practiced unskillfully, but… unlike any other religion, at the heart of Buddhism there is no dogma. The Buddha once said “Believe not because some old manuscripts are produced, believe not because it’s your national belief, because you have been made to believe it from childhood; but reason it all out, and after you’ve analyzed it, then if you find it will do good to one and all, believe it, live up to it, and help others live up to it.” I think this notion is radically free of dogma and largely what Buddhism is about. The Buddha achieved enlightenment through meditation and he invites us to undertake the same experiment. (Buddhism is very scientific in that way). If we cannot reproduce some of his results and validate his findings using our critical intuition and critical thinking then there is no reason we should believe anything he said. I haven’t found this level of truth in any other religion. Some of the heretics/mystics of other religions come close (but they are unfortunately rarely allowed into their respective canons whereas for Buddhism this kind of thinking is the rule rather than the exception). But yes you are right in that Buddhists certainly still hold on to their dogma (as I said, 70% of the world’s population still believe in a mythic God and with that comes the dogma 
).
You said: “…your cynicism about Christianity is more fierce because you grew up in it. Whereas I – who am not Christian – tend to be a bit more cynical about my birth-tradition. Still, again, your criticism seems leveraged against the charismatic / evangelical movement, and ignores the authentic spirituality that exists in the mature and passion-filled churches that have better things to do than make converts, collect tithes, and build membership roles. I have been in such churches, and they are places where ministers are in place not because they are articulate orators, but because they are dedicated to holiness. Some of them are churches where sermonizing is beside the point; where it is the power of ritual that draws people in towards the infinite. Some have gay pastors. Some are lay-driven.”
Quite right. I do tend to hit Christianity pretty hard because that is the tradition that is most popular in the US and the one I grew up in. However, I don’t ignore the authentic spirituality going on in Christianity. It’s just that true authentic spirituality is so exceptionally rare (in ANY wisdom tradition). 99% of religious practices have nothing to do with transformation. Only 1% has of the population has authentic transformative experiences, the rest just hear stories and believe them. The kind of religion that is predominantly practiced is unfortunately of the mythic-membership type, and does the most harm, which is why I focus so much on it. Sure, they are easy to pick on, but I think it’s important to make critical distinctions about this type of practice precisely because it is so unskillful and harmful. We have to keep in mind that MOST people believe these things. The people who are stuck (or chosen to be stuck) at this level of conscious should still be honored of course. They are as divine as anyone else, however, we should still be critical of them when their belief systems cause so much harm to everyone. The kind of authentic spirituality that is going on is so few and the harm they do far less that I really am not so concerned with them (in terms of the harm that they do).
You said: “It is a stimulating way to consider how our concepts of deity have changed over time. But this very transience should inculcate a sense of humility in us in the face of mystery, don’t you think? Sometimes our confidence in deconstructing theology trips us into arrogance before the genuine experience of others and how they relate to the transcendent.”
I agree 100%. Deconstruction can take us only so far (the main harm of postmodernity has been that it never or seldom found a way to put anything back together again. We have come a long way in a very short amount of time. And knowing the things we know (and only guessing at the things we don’t know) we can’t help but stand in awe of the mystery that will always remain no matter what we learn about our world and our selves. With that said, we have to always cat with insufficient knowledge. Surely, in a hundred years or more people will look back on us and think how foolish we all are. And they’d be right probably. But today we only know what we can know, and we have to act on that knowledge (all the while realizing that our truths are always true, but partial).
You said: “I guess the bone I’m picking with you is that you’re dismissing the sincere experience of many, many Christians (and Muslims and Jews). I honor and validate your journey, Ryan, but I also honor the religious experience of all those who are finding in any religion the strength to be kind, open, loving, dedicated, honest, and real.”
I’m not dismissing them. Far from it. Wherever people decide to stop evolving is entirely their right. if they want to be a fundamentalist and say that I am going to Hell then that’s their right. And they should be honored. But, honoring is one thing, but not saying when something is bad/harmful/evil (evil, implying intent to cause harm) does no honor to anyone. When a Christian fundamentalist blows up an abortion clinic killing other human beings this is bad. It’s our duty to stand against this sort of behavior and even the belief systems that perpetuate it. This sort of thing can be found in any fundamentalist religion of course. But my focus was primarily on Christianity in the blog post. I thought it was getting long enough as it was.
Joel, thank you for posting such wonderful comments. Very insightful, full of depth and experience. Wonderful! I have no doubt we’d probably down a pot of coffee or three talking about spirituality.
I REALLY enjoyed everyone else’s comments too. You are all remarkable human beings. I wish I had the time to respond individually, but Joel’s comments seemed most pressing.
Love and Light…
hey ryan, could i gently add that your definition of “christianity” as you use it to desribe believe ’set’, does seem fairly ‘leveraged’ as joel says, against the bible belt, abortion clinics blowing up, fundamentalist, going to hell ‘version’. and it is a version, perhaps influenced by your own cultural influences, that seems to be fueling your foundational comments. however, in this , you do not describe thomas merton,thomas keating,richard rohr, brennan manning, julian of norwich, brother lawrence, terese of avila, madame guyon, evelyn underhill, henri nouwen and many more, who i humbly suggest, are not contained by your descriptors. i only suggest that premature ‘we/they” thinking, even in a process of ’shedding’ or ‘deconstruction’, may ironically simply form new barriers, just now on the other side of the road – which more or less becomes more or less a reverse intolerance and simply ’same shit, different pile’ IMO. the ‘i.c.’ in my observations, does not have a corner on the market regarding fundamentalism, hypocrisy, binary thinking, or intolerance. just sayin’………
p.s. and you are absolutely correct that joel is a fine, fine man – a man of deep reflection, sensitivity, brilliance, kindness, humility, tolerance and peace. and, he loves jesus.
Vicki…I didn’t include those Christian thinkers because they aren’t practicing Christianity from a Pre-rational/fundamentalist orientation. They are the most enlightened of the Christian thinkers, and so, aren’t problematic.
Now…the we/they duality…we can’t get past that no matter how hard we try. There are always going to be others who have different beliefs, different experiences, people from different developmental levels, of course, we’re all a manifestation of the divine, but people can’t be rather stupid too, right? In the relative world we have to make critical distinctions. All people may be divine, but I don’t want to spend my time hanging out with Nazis either.
Now, the us/them thing again or as you said “i only suggest that premature ‘we/they” thinking, even in a process of ’shedding’ or ‘deconstruction’, may ironically simply form new barriers, just now on the other side of the road – which more or less becomes more or less a reverse intolerance and simply ’same shit, different pile’ IMO.”
Making critical distinctions is NOT the same thing as being intolerant. I tolerate everyone’s beliefs so long as they do not interfere with my own or harm others. As a student of Integral Theory I honor everyone’s beliefs no matter what they are (or how enlightened or foolish their beliefs are) but when one group or one person does something harmful or something that is wrong, calling attention to it is not intolerance, it’s simply ethics.
And for the record I only defined Christianity from the fundamentalist orientation because THAT is the orientation that is most troubling and causes the most harm (also the one that is most practiced…). I could talk about Thomas Merton but people who read his books aren’t blowing up abortion clinics. If I did a blog post on transformational Christian thinkers THEN I could talk about all those thinkers (all of which I love by the way). I understand the need to want to come to the aid of those who are practicing Christianity in such an enlightened way (and single handedly saving the Christian tradition) but the work they are doing and have done has very little to do with the work the “fundies” are doing. Night and day. And understanding the difference does not make one intolerant of either one.
hey ryan – i am glad to hear that intolerance is not the same as critical distinctions ! and i am so glad to hear that you are identifying different ‘versions’, which i think is key. i’m not sure your original submission acknowledged that? perhaps i missed that.
.
further, i 100% share this idea re intolerance versus critical distinctions!!! thrilled you mentioned that. prior discussions re ‘judgment’ has at times suggested that there is no difference between what we condone, what we understand and what we ‘judge’. in my own mind, ‘judgement’ is a completely separate issue from what i may make a critical distinction from re ‘condoning’ or ‘understanding’ actions/attitudes or thoughts. for example i do not ‘condone’ hitler’s behaviour , nor would i, even if i fully ‘understood’ where he was coming from. however, to ‘judge’ hitler, in my view, would be to presume that ”i’ was somehow, NOT capable of being an adulterer or a murderers if the conditions were right , and somehow then ’separating’ myself from the one who is guilty of it such as hitler.
.
so, i am absolutely on board with those very distinctions!!!
.
i think your original disseration sort of seemed (perhaps i misunderstood) ”chrisitianity’ as to your particular experience, and i only desired to humbly suggest that there are christ followers who do not seem to fit this description.
.
cheers,
vicki
Understood loud and clear, Vicki.
Maybe I should have written a longer blog post, huh? 
Here’s something you might find interesting too.
http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/482
ryan – hahahahahaha! : )thanks bro!
Thank you! It’s been very cool making critical distinctions with you.
fo sho bro! how we use terms and language is everything to me, for optimal understanding and communication. it is something i strive for, although i’ll never be a joel!!! : )
Yeah, I get the feeling Joel has probably already attained enlightenment. he was probably drinking a Diet Coke or something and Bam! He figured it all out.
I’m still waiting for mine to hit. 
Wow! It’s awesome that such a great discussion has ensued. Catching up just now, I feel moved by the excellent insights!!
.
No enlightenment here!!!!!! Just an eccentric knucklehead who is capable of being overwhelmed by things others — with heads screwed on tighter than mine — barely notice.
.
Vicki – Your generosity is overwhelming. Thank you for your kind words!!
.
Ryan – Everything you’ve written here has been sincere and openhearted. Looks to me like just about the best sort of interaction that can be hoped for in a forum like this. I, too, have read Wilbur, and I find integral theory to be a tremendous framework for encountering spirituality, work, politics, life, EVERYTHING! Where I’m at in my journey, it is no longer in the foreground. But I watched the video you linked to, and am deeply interested in it!
.
For me, right now, I feel very raw and most open to the simplest (not simplistic, mind you) avenues to God. I’ve also found that where I have moved my fascination with “religion” to the periphery, it has cleared my lens to see the holiness and depth in folks who I might otherwise have been quick to categorize and, thereby, dismiss. Such as a neighbor who I stopped to talk to earlier this week while riding my bike. He told me how he’d been fired, with the kind remark from his boss that all he is good for “is picking up trash”. Holding back great emotion, though, he spoke of how he knew that God had a plan for him, and that it would be all right. At the risk of sounding precious, in Michigan this is no small declaration of faith. In short, I was humbled by his courage, and appreciative of the consolation of grace.
.
My outlook is ecumenical to the core, and softened by the awareness of my own fragility. I’m also a mild skeptic of the wares sold under the new age shingle. Which leads me to a comment you made in your response that caught my eye:
.
“Surely, in a hundred years or more people will look back on us and think how foolish we all are. And they’d be right probably. But today we only know what we can know, and we have to act on that knowledge (all the while realizing that our truths are always true, but partial).”
.
This is very fair. I would add only that in things spiritual/philosophical, time does not ALWAYS bring improvement. Sure, we have come a long way from much that is arcane. But some of the names on Vicki’s list, and other’s that may be on yours (Lau Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Bhodidharma, Meister Eckhart, the anonymous author of “The Cloud of Unknowing”) and countless more remind us that which is authentic ages gracefully. I like to believe that we don’t need to look to the great thinkers for inspiration, though.
.
In my life, I have learned the most from the selflessness and generosity of ordinary friends AND strangers who’ve shown me that when the chips are down, exquisite thinking matters little compared to a timely word of encouragement, a sympathetic ear, or the mere presence of someone who shows genuine caring to you, be they atheist, fundamentalist, or Zoroastrian. I don’t know if there is a more profound wisdom than love that is shared with another. And no degree is required for that kind of “skillfulness,” as you say. Though I have known really smart folks – doctors and such – who have a good measure of this kind of wisdom, and have offered it to me just when I’ve needed it most.
.
ANYWAY – I will stop rambling. You’ve won me over with your sincerity and candor, Ryan. I’m so glad Jim published your post! This was a very worthwhile discussion! Thanks to both you and Vicki for enriching me!
.
Your friend,
Joel
Wow! It’s awesome that such a great discussion has ensued. Catching up just now, I feel moved by the excellent insights!!
.
No enlightenment here!!!!!! Just an eccentric knucklehead who is capable of being overwhelmed by things others (with heads screwed on tight) barely notice. J
.
Vicki – Your generosity is overwhelming. Thank you for your kind words!!
.
Ryan – Everything you’ve written here has been sincere and openhearted. Looks to me like just about the best sort of interaction that can be hoped for in a forum like this. I, too, have read Wilbur, and I find integral theory to be a tremendous framework for encountering spirituality, work, politics, life, EVERYTHING! Where I’m at in my journey, it is no longer in the foreground. But I watched the video you linked to, and am deeply interested in it!
.
For me, right now, I feel very raw and most open to the simplest (not simplistic, mind you) avenues to God. I’ve also found that where I have moved my fascination with “religion” to the periphery, it has cleared my lens to see the holiness and depth in folks who I might otherwise have been quick to categorize and, thereby, dismiss. Such as a neighbor who I stopped to talk to earlier this week while riding my bike. He told me how he’d been fired, with the kind remark from his boss that all he is good for “is picking up trash”. Holding back great emotion, though, he spoke of how he knew that God had a plan for him, and that it would be all right. At the risk of sounding precious, in Michigan this is no small declaration of faith. In short, I was humbled by his courage, and appreciative of the consolation of grace.
.
My outlook is ecumenical to the core, and softened by the awareness of my own fragility. I’m also a mild skeptic of the wares sold under the new age shingle. Which leads me to a comment you made in your response that caught my eye:
.
“Surely, in a hundred years or more people will look back on us and think how foolish we all are. And they’d be right probably. But today we only know what we can know, and we have to act on that knowledge (all the while realizing that our truths are always true, but partial).”
.
This is very fair. I would add only that in things spiritual/philosophical, time does not ALWAYS bring improvement. Sure, we have come a long way from much that is arcane. But some of the names on Vicki’s list, and other’s that may be on yours (Lau Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Bhodidharma, Meister Eckhart, the anonymous author of “The Cloud of Unknowing”) and countless more remind us that which is authentic ages gracefully. I like to believe that we don’t need to look to the great thinkers for inspiration, though.
.
In my life, I have learned the most from the selflessness and generosity of ordinary friends AND strangers who’ve shown me that when the chips are down, exquisite thinking matters little compared to a timely word of encouragement, a sympathetic ear, or the mere presence of someone who shows genuine caring to you, be they atheist, fundamentalist, or Zoroastrian. I don’t know if there is a more profound wisdom than love that is shared with another. And no degree is required for that kind of “skillfulness,” as you say. Though I have known really smart folks – doctors and such – who have a good measure of this kind of wisdom, and have offered it to me just when I’ve needed it most.
.
ANYWAY – I will stop rambling. You’ve won me over with your sincerity and candor, Ryan. I’m so glad Jim published your post! This was a very worthwhile discussion! Thanks to both you and Vicki for enriching me!
.
Your friend,
Joel
Not sure how that ended up there twice! If Jim could slice it in half somewhere in the middle, that would be cool.
hahahaha! cute! joel da man!!! ; )
So nice had to be posted twice!
But seriously, very beautiful response, Joel. I agree 100%. I absolutely love “that which is authentic ages gracefully”!!!! Magnificent!
I know folks like us tend to be very cognitive and intellectual about things (which is very important) but as you said it’s often the kind word from a friend or just the simplicity of a look that can distill a thousand libraries and invokes Spirit/love/compassion.
That’s how humanity rolls!
Love – that’s all.
Ryan, Vicki, Joel…
Really enjoyed your comments back and forth!
Ryan, as a person who also tends to be cognitive and intellectual about things, your comment…’it’s often the kind word from a friend or just the simplicity of a look that can distill a thousand libraries and invokes Spirit/love/compassion’. That’s it! I don’t know you but it stirs a feeling of compassion/connection within me just reading those words. IMHO, it’s a meeting of the hearts, not just the minds, that brings Joy. Simple, pure connection…to me, that’s Spirit. Here. Now.
Peace!
Oops…meant to say ‘your comment resonated with me’. Typing too fast.
I must admit Ryan that much of what you said is way over my head but here are a couple things you said I felt.
“courage to love enacted by a particular Palestinian Jew”
“God is what was before the beginning, before the Big Bang, the Eternal, whatever power or force, that started off all that we know and see in the universe, and what will be after the universe (or multiverse) finally ends. That is God. And we can name this as simply Spirit”.
I do think we are evolving spiritually, and it dosent matter if you think yourself to be a Christan or a Buddhist etc, cause i think you can call all those labels cheese puffs, but as we begin to understand that our relationship with God will never be understood in any bible or book, but will be know when we feel the unconditional, equal, and limitless love he has for each of us. I believe the evolution of that belief has began and as it grows we look at each other with the same love that God has always had for all of us.
Hail to the new word of cheese puffs!
Jane, thank you so much for your comment. From one soul to another…:)
Doug…I agree 100% and …Hail to the new word of cheese puffs! LOL
I love cheese puffs,,, thanks for your insightful views and conversation back and forth. I truly believe that Jim’s blog is helping a lot of people come to terms with their own established ideas of life and the possibilities to feel reaffirmed or to open their minds even more, question themselves, etc. It’s been very beneficial to me and I just want to say thank you for your posts, this is a great, sad, wonderful, angry, loving, hating, confusing and clear journey that we all get to experience.