The Power of Questioning Our Spiritual Beliefs
BY HARV BISHOP
I was reminded of our common humanity in the least likely of places at the October 2015 Parliament of the World’s Religions in Salt Lake City. The jam-packed schedule of four days of talks and workshops was distilled in a satori of sorts in the men’s room. As I walked in, a vibrantly orange-robed Buddhist was leaving. Inside, a white-garbed turbaned Sikh and black-clad Muslim were in various stages of engagement with the facilities that stripped our differences down to the basics.
Another scene, which moved me to tears, was a Christian priest holding hands with a Sikh, joined by Jews with yarmulkes, Muslims, and native peoples and many others engaged in the flowing, circular movements of the Sufi-inspired Dances of Universal Peace.
I was still unpacking the lessons from the Parliament when news reports hit about the terrorist attacks in Paris, followed by the shocking rise in anti-Syrian refugee rhetoric in the U.S. and the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California.
Our polarized U.S. politics and culture, writes essayist Curtis White at Salon.com, is divided between those who take their stories as literal truth and those that understand their stories are stories and that stories — explanations about the world and how it works — can change.
The call to humility which allows interpreting scripture in context and as not universally binding on all people is both a powerful idea and elusive, as the post-Parliament tragedies demonstrate. There is obviously now a dangerous divide between those who read their scriptures literally and those who read their scriptures in a more inclusive way.
Gary Lachman’s epic and masterful new book “The Secret Teachers of the Western World” traces the divide back to antiquity. The book shows that there was a good reason inclusive thinkers were “secret” because when they were open they often paid with their lives at the hands of fundamentalists.
But such an obvious divide has no equally obvious answers. Clearly no one religion has a lock on problematic fundamentalism and, as seen at the Parliament, all the faiths represented have open-minded adherents.
Is fundamentalism inevitable? And if so must it always take its dysfunctional form? The following are possible explanations from Parliament participants and other leading-edge thinkers.
Explanation 1: It’s Power Politics, Not Religion
At the Parliament, renowned author and former nun, Karen Armstrong said that religion is blamed by conventional wisdom as a primary cause of the world’s violence when it is often secular nationalism and power politics that hijacks religion to support the injustice that fuels violence.
Explanation 2: Fear and prejudice leads to injustice
Georgetown University Islamic scholar Jonathan AC Brown shared his grave concern about Islamophobia at a Parliament panel. It is false that Islamic clerics and scholars are silent in the face of terrorism, he said, adding that even the most conservative clerics and scholars rebuke ISIS.
Explanation 3: Scripture is symbolic and contextual, not literal
At the Parliament, one panel addressed “difficult texts” such as violent wording in the Torah, Qur’an and Christian scriptures. Brown said that these “difficult” scriptures require historical and comparative contextual analysis. He noted that there are two “sword verses” in the Qur’an driven by very specific historical circumstances as compared to many “peace verses.” Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb passionately argued that scriptures are symbolic and our understanding of allegory evolves over time. All religious people, she said, must confront injustice and oppression.
The possible answers at the Parliament are fascinating, but how easily can people be persuaded to set aside a literal reading of scripture?
Explanation 4: Changes in consciousness can’t be forced
Whether we take our cultural stories literally or not is tied to stages of consciousness that move from simple to complex, say proponents of developmental psychology. Fundamentalism fuses our self-identity with the stories of religion and nationalism (we have the one true religion and live in the best country on Earth) and is guided by rules rather than individual conscience. Another, more complex, level of consciousness is able to see those stories as stories and be open to the truths in other stories about life meaning and spirituality. The more we can look at our assumptions and question them, the more we can find humility and compassion for all beings.
Harvard developmental psychologist Robert Kegan says growth in consciousness is being able to look at our assumptions about the way the world works rather than seeing our worldview as reality. At one developmental level, I get married because my identity is fused with my cultural and religious expectations. At another level I marry not because I “have to” but because I choose to share my life with a specific beloved.
But Spiritual philosopher Ken Wilber cautions us. Shifts in stages of consciousness can’t be forced. We cannot dismiss those who prefer literalism.
Wilber says that religion has two principle functions:
- As a form of translation of other’s religious experience into rules and traditions that help people cope with life’s difficulties and existential angst;
- As a conveyor belt for consciousness to move from received teachings to direct experience of the Divine and expanding our circles of care and concern to include all people and the planet. Literalism or fundamentalism, says Wilber, can be functional and is an important step on that conveyor belt.
Explanation 5: Growing consciousness can be a scary thing
The wise author and Quaker political activist Parker Palmer says people must either accept received knowledge to cope with life’s ups and downs or undertake the harrowing inner journey towards self-knowledge whether through spirituality, philosophy or psychology. And that journey towards psychological and spiritual maturity can be frightening.
Explanation 6: ‘People are way smarter than we imagine’
In the brilliant new book “The Super Natural,” celebrated Rice University comparative religion scholar Jeffrey Kripal says that religion always has two inevitable components:
- A projection of our inner psychology and fears; and
- An authentic experience of the light of consciousness which is always and inevitably filtered and distorted through our human senses and cultural beliefs.
Religions stress the second and ignore the first, while scientific materialists see only the first and not the second.
Our perceptual filters and distortions are the crux of why humility about our spiritual beliefs is essential. and it is every bit as inescapably human as the scene I came across in the men’s room at the Parliament of the Worlds’ Religions.
As humans we are living “filters,” Kripal says.
How We Find Humility
How do we wake up from what Kripal calls our “cultural trance” and find a bit of humility?
Kripal advocates a practice he calls “say again” that begins with accepting that our stories are approximations of spiritual realities and meant to be replaced with better, more compassionate and ecologically helpful versions. “Say again” simply means being comfortable with paradox, questioning our assumptions and challenging ourselves to wake up from our “cultural trance.”
Are people open to the practice? Kripal says yes.
“My overwhelming experience in different parts of the country, and in Europe is that there is a vast demographic that is hungry for such a third space and is really frustrated with the two dysfunctional extremes (of religious and scientific fundamentalism),” he told me during an interview. “I think people are way, way, smarter than we imagine. And a big, big majority of people are already there. There are few public examples of it that people can point to and say well, that is what I think. The kind of conversations we have in public about religion or the UFO phenomenon is really quite silly or quite superficial.”
A word from Ernest Holmes
Ernest Holmes, the founder of Religious Science, disliked fundamentalism and called for the openness to allow his teachings to evolve. “I would desire that in our teaching there would never be any arrogance,” he said near the end of his life, “for it always indicates spiritual immaturity to me. Others will arise who will know more than we do; they won’t be better or worse, they will be different and know more than we do. Evolution is forward.”
What would result if we practiced questioning our assumptions in New Thought? Rather than point fingers at literalists in other traditions, I wonder in what ways New Thought is caught in its own stories about the world and the way it works. Yes, New Thought is open to the common truths in all religions, and yes there is breathing room and freedom found in few other traditions. Sometimes I wonder if we grasp for superficial connections to what we see as “the golden thread of truth” in other faith paths without seeing honest differences; differences that we can learn from if we honor them.
When you think about New Thought what assumptions would you question? Leave your comments below.
Harvey, evolution, every day in every way we get better and better, is a comforting thought. Unfortunately it is obviously not true.
Take just one small example, retailing. It used to be we were a nation of shopkeepers. We’ve become a nation of clerks working for Starbucks and WalMart.
An important new book by a Notre Dame professor and advisor to the Vatican has recently come out. It examines in depth why our lives change and the limits of the evolutionary paradigm.
I’m going to post a link to this thought provoking article of yours, Harvey, as my daily post on http://www.JohnWren.com and a question to you there, the short form might be something like “with March 1 Colorado Caucus upon us, is this the right time for starting a reexamination of values?”
Hi John,
The evolutionary view of consciousness under consideration here isn’t as simple as assuming things simply get better.
A Harvard study has found a relationship between affirmations such as Coue’s “better and better” and the placebo effect and improving health (see Mitch Horowitz’s column in the November Science of Mind magazine), but that affirmation represents the power of belief in the individual not the collective evolution of consciousness.
Wilber and others would argue that we both evolve and regress. Your apt example of shopkeepers becoming Wal Mart greeters illustrates regression well. The fact that overt slavery is no longer widely accepted would be an example of evolved consciousness.
There are absolutely folks who challenge the enlightenment belief in progress and raise some good arguments. Would be interested in a link or title for the book you mention.
Thanks for the link! (Anytime is the right time for discussing values. In my view it drives our politics, but we avoid discussing values openly. Climate change talk is focused on is the science accurate or not when the real discussion is about values.)
-Harv
Hi Harv, thanks for your quick response. Tomorrow Lent begins, I was wondering if you were thinking that might be an especially good season for the sort of self-examination you are suggesting. All I got onto http://www.JohnWren.com today relative to your very interesting article here was my very brief review of A Foot in the River, the book I refer to above here. More there tomorrow with my thoughts on Lent as a time for reexamination of beliefs. John
You’ve got to know when to hold ’em,
Know when to fold ’em,
Know when to walk away,
And know when to run.
Johnny Cash (SJ?)
I always seek to keep this thing fluid and alive in my life. I detest proselytizing so I keep explanations of my spiritual beliefs to a minimum unless asked directly or meet a like minded person. My experience has been that this journey within is a solitary one. Many can point the way, and there are many paths inward, but only I can make the journey.
So I question anything that looks like a rule. Especially in the “out-pictured world”. I believe that we create our own reality. Most people on the planet have no concept of that. So I think it’s important to refrain from judgement and try to be an example of another way. A better way. I’m not always successful at that but it’s always my aim.
Agree that example is always better than words. And given that New Thought is counter-cultural in some ways probably the wisest course as you say. I always compare the journey within and the path chosen to marriage. It’s always a deeply personal choice that others don’t automatically understand.
Thanks Harvey, a very thought provoking read. For me personally, the question of what assumptions, aspects or tenants of New Thought would I question, I can’t say. And maybe that is where the questioning should start or maybe not. I find that I am very comfortable in my beliefs and they work for me as I walk my personal path (and the understanding is, it is my personal and mine only). If they do in fact work for me, is there a ‘higher’ plain of spiritual thought that I am not seeing? Or is there some other ‘material’ insight and information I should be adding to the content or contents of my personal spiritual process? Is being comfortable in personal beliefs the same as not growing as a spiritual being when within our own individual spiritual paradigm we are seemingly continuing to move forward along our personal path? Seeking personal mastery within our process and also understanding that it is a process/journey and not a destination, I think maybe the answer to that is individual. However you have posed a question that I believe many are asking. For me, I think, I would rather ask; can we accept the beliefs of other spiritual paths as being as valid as the one we have personally chosen? And in so doing can we also be comfortable within ourselves without either the egoistic prejudice of spiritual elitism or a position of questioning whether we have found ‘the way’ as if maybe the grass is greener sort of consciousness. Even though the belief paradigm may be different than our own it may also be equally perfect for the individual who has made the choice to follow that path as ours is perfect for our journey or do we consider because is it different do we need to embody part or all of it and make it an addition to what we presently see as the structure of our personal beliefs? Do we need to expand the ‘material’ contents of our belief? Or rather can we not live in complete and harmonious acceptance and support of others, their differing paths/beliefs, knowing that those beliefs, while being possibly similar or completely different are a valid path but not ours. Can we, at the same time, be taking time to master our own? Do we need to question the assumptions, maybe or maybe not. Just my personal thoughts. Thanks again Harvey.
Thanks so much Steve.
These are all thought provoking questions. As Mitch once wrote one of our best hopes is less in answers than coming up with better questions. You raise a particularly important one. If we are in a path that as an article of faith stresses that it is not the one true path is it as important to question our assumptions? My answer would be yes because of our imperfect cognitive make-up and the cultural conditioning Kripal talks about. How we see the world is inevitably distorted. And even when we have direct spiritual experience we have to integrate it and interpret it with our flawed equipment. The Hebrew word for soul mate translates to “helpmate against.” Why would would we want to marry a “helpmate against.” Ideally our spouse is a “helpmate against the narrow view”- someone who can challenge us to transcend our inevitable blind spots.
I would also point to our own growth of consciousness. What I got out of the Science of Mind text when I took SOM 1 in the 80s is not what I see now that I have grown and life circumstances have changed.
Bravo, and thank you. An exquisite treatment of this manifestation of fear, that has again risen from the shadows with barbaric ferocity. All the ‘explanations’ are entirely true, it seems to me, the first of which I realized up close when living in Jerusalem. No one there believes the conflict between Arabs and Jews is about religion, it is a given that it is about politics and power. I would suggest this holds for all the violence manifest in the region and its spread throughout the world, with this caveat: the projections of our fears, self-loathing, rage, etc., arises from that murky corner of the unconscious that is especially vulnerable to group mind. When a religious ideology serves as a vehicle for those projections, those affected may very well think they believe the dogma attached, so overtaken are they by the collective trance.
That said, questioning our beliefs, especially The Biggies – our assumptions about the nature of reality, our place within it, can be so threatening that without support, without the fundamental security of feeling loved and connected, even those who understand the value in it may not venture in too deeply.
Evolution cannot be forced – but it is possible to cultivate love, and to touch others with it.
Very well said Sara. I especially resonate to the your idea of religions serving as a vehicle for group projections and how that may relate to belief.
Humans are easy. Part freaked out monkey, part Christ child. I’m appreciating Paul’s guides and his work more and more… I have a subscription to the digital magazine, your interview with him is in there, ya?
From an appreciative monkey sister, beautiful one. <3
If we are aware of and earnestly engaged in the evolution of the “inward ascension” in an individual or collective effort, then we may exercise our greatest gift, that of our free will, to choose peace over being right. This of course requires benevolent compassion and great tolerance through Love.
I agree with Ken Wilber that consciousness cannot be forced. But we do have the opportunity at this time to perceive the Spirit of Truth, which is a living Spirit, in a multi-dimensional quantum consciousness which has grown out of religious fundamentalism.
I’m reminded of T.S. Eliot’s thought:
“You shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our journeying
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.”
~ Eliot, T. S. in ‘Little Gidding V’, from ‘Four Quartets’ 1942
Also the words of one of my Psychology professors:”Having a high tolerance for ambiguity is a sign of mental health.”
I may have some assumptions I question and if they are of much concern I let them go. Although I ran a long track of twenty-seven years with the fumdamentalist Jehovah’s Witnesses and have had close to a similar number with new thought I find myself moving to a more internal trip. Is there a God consciousness and if so how is it communing with me or me with It?