Religious Belief: Flourishing or Fractured?
Last month I heard a BBC report in which an official from the Greek Orthodox Church condemned worshippers of the twelve gods of Mount Olympus - they've started holding services at some of the ancient sites. The official referred to the devotees as “miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion.”
Sounded pretty harsh. From what you could hear in the report and what was being described, the activities of the Mt. Olympus folks consisted of wearing long robes and chanting.
The BBC report also mentioned that Druids have resumed worshipping at Stonehenge and that belief in Thor has been revived in Denmark. Indeed, a glance through the religion and spirituality books available on Amazon.com shows the great variety of belief systems that have gained currency today – ranging, one might say, from Old Age to New Age.
Adding to this diversity is a phenomenon that often concerns religious conservatives: large numbers of people “pick and choose” their beliefs from among a variety of traditions. Finally, the many denominations within mainstream religions themselves display discrepancies, sometimes sharp ones, in the beliefs they espouse.
Is belief today in a state of thriving diversity or fragmentation?
Sounded pretty harsh. From what you could hear in the report and what was being described, the activities of the Mt. Olympus folks consisted of wearing long robes and chanting.
The BBC report also mentioned that Druids have resumed worshipping at Stonehenge and that belief in Thor has been revived in Denmark. Indeed, a glance through the religion and spirituality books available on Amazon.com shows the great variety of belief systems that have gained currency today – ranging, one might say, from Old Age to New Age.
Adding to this diversity is a phenomenon that often concerns religious conservatives: large numbers of people “pick and choose” their beliefs from among a variety of traditions. Finally, the many denominations within mainstream religions themselves display discrepancies, sometimes sharp ones, in the beliefs they espouse.
Is belief today in a state of thriving diversity or fragmentation?
Posted by Paul at 1:16 PM Permalink
44 Comments:
My simple prayer is that each path protects the right and ability of others to travel their life unimpeded.
When I was living near Stonehenge during the 80's the entire area would be overrun with the Travelers on the solstice. They only allowed one particular group of Druids within the circle and it started causing riots between the police guarding the site and the neo-pagans. I remember being stopped at a roadblock there. It was pretty crazy...I think that was the year of The Battle of Beanfield.
I think we are seeing a very partisan time in theology...not unlike our politics.
I personally outgrew my comfort level with the traditional Christian churches, (while I remain in awe of the deep faith of their followers)...
Discovering the Wiccan "Pagan religion", which embraces Christian beliefs and all religions which the individual practitioners find inspiration from (both "old age" and "new age"), was like finding a long-lost family, where I could finally relax, instead of being constantly reminded of the ways in which I did not fit in (like trying to wear someone else's shoes!)
The fact that religions such as Wicca are becoming more prevalent, despite their lack of recruitment or public visibility, shows me that the diverse model is appreciated now, more than ever!
I eventually found that the Wiccan group I had been participating with, also felt a bit restrictive for me, which is probably the nature of all human organizations...(there are also many "solitary" Wiccan practitioners, this is quite accepted as an individual choice!)
But their practice of embracing the spiritual energy of all peoples as one, without boundaries--I believe this is necessary to save the planet, as the fragmented way is now threatening to destroy the world...
I think the very issues that are brought up here are ones that have been discussed at great length by many people of thought in many places and times.
I do think we have to answer these for ourselves of course,(We must!) but I suspect until we reach some sort of equilibrium in shared experiences we won't have much of global flourishing of commonly held beliefs, I think...
I am always struck by people whom react in a threatened manner to others whom hold differing beliefs.
Like what the hell is the problem? Ok, you believe the moon is cheese.
I feel its this or that. She over there likes to dance naked and shout odd sounding names. Who cares? Honestly, as long as you're not killing another person, how does what you think really effect my belief?
I respect that most Christians hold that the Bible is literally true. I don't agree, but I can see that it is important for them, so I listen with respect because it is a matter of value to them. I probally may have lot to gain by doing so, maybe I'll learn something about my own faith. It is not a threat to my beliefs or my experiences that they have come to a conclusion that I have not. When the two of us die and, inshallah (God willing), go to heaven - perhaps we will see whats what. But until that point I can't cast stones.
As a distant observer it would be impossible for us to judge whether Druids or the worshippers of the old Greek gods are finding therein a substitute for the religious mysticism or ritual or belief or sense of community that we might find meaningful in, say, Christianity.
I don't know what motivates them or whether they will be lifetime worshippers in this manner.
I followed an Indian guru for thirty years and I don't know if it helped me or hindered. I incline to the view that it was an aberration, but it must have fulfilled some need, for I stayed so long.
If I cannot comment on my own experience, I certainly cannot comment on anyone else's!
it is democratisation of religion. the powers that be at the head of established religions will cry foul fearing a loss of power. religions have to be user friendly now.
and here you are! For shame on you having a brand new blog for two months and not telling me!
(it's worth seeing, folks!)
....................
I love all the comments on this thread--
seems like we are coming to the same place from different starting points--
I really like your attitude, Kevin--and you express it so well!
Crystal, I always wondered if the Druid human sacrifices were a misrepresentation--I have a book about the Druids--now I'm motivated to read it!
The DL’s eyes widen appreciatively and he even looks surprised, like he’s hearing this idea for the first time or at least recognizing that maybe the journalist is really hearing him for the first time. His answer, smiling broadly, is something like, “Yes! That’s it! A good person, yes!”
I became an instant fan…
ROSIE: I’m wondering about what you refer to as the common core of the world’s belief systems. If by “belief system” you mean what’s regarded as right and wrong behavior (the moral realm), then I’d see some major commonalities too.
If by belief system you mean descriptions of the grand scheme of things – theological beliefs – then to me, things look pretty hard to reconcile. For example, either you believe that Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets or you don’t; that Jesus was the Christ or he wasn’t. If you’re Buddhist or Hindu you don't believe either of these things.
Seems that way to me too – a very partisan time in both politics and religion. Large numbers of people display absolute confidence that their ideology/belief system is right and act accordingly if they happen to have the power – take the Cheney-Bush administration. When you “know” you already have the right answer, there’s no need to listen to diverging viewpoints.
FIREBIRD: I see both trends. On the one hand, the one you see. On the other, the trend, world wide and at least as big, toward fundamentalism. It seems to me that the second trend often works against what you cite and I also view as being so important: seeing all people as one.
KEVIN: That sense of threat that some people have when others don’t share their beliefs to me looks especially characteristic of fundamentalism. I think that’s basically why, as I just mentioned in reply to Firebird, fundamentalism often works against peace, common purpose, and unity in the world.
And you bring up something I’ve wondered about too: why should it be that way so often? I have to say that from time to time I have encountered people with very conservative beliefs who don’t condemn or speak condescendingly to others…
YVES: The BBC report wasn’t in depth, only briefly commenting on the resurgence, in one form or another, of ancient religions in the context of reporting on opposition to this among at least some elements in the Greek church.
So you’ve had that much experience of Hinduism then? That's great, wish I knew more about it.
CRYSTAL: I don’t know anything about Druidism but human sacrifice must have dropped out of the picture as it’s practiced today. My impression is that ritual sacrifice wasn’t uncommon in the ancient history of many religions.
It’s noteworthy that for many Christians, Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb of God is the core belief and often celebrated in a ceremony of the Eucharist in which believers are taught that they are eating and drinking “the body and blood of Christ.” Of course there’s no moral equivalence or even similarity between the ceremony and killing someone, but it does strike the thematic chord of human sacrifice.
SERENITY: That sounds right to me – that the diversity of beliefs indicates that a lot of people today are doing some real seeking - in line with Firebird’s comment. The fact that they arrive at such a wide variety of answers in terms of which belief system they end up embracing is remarkable to me. So much seeking; so many different answers!
Unless, perhaps, Rosie above is correct about there being some core element among all these beliefs. As I mentioned to her, I’m having trouble seeing that.
MAGICEYE: “Many paths to one God” – I think this would resonate with many inclusive-minded theists. Maybe that’s as close as we can come to Rosie’s idea of a core element shared across belief systems?
But polytheism would be a different matter; so would Buddhism; and so would the outlooks of people who don’t believe in God but consider themselves spiritual.
Even within theism, there are different ways of conceiving of God. For example, the theologian Paul Tillich refers to God as “the ground of being,” suggesting such an intimate relationship between Creator and creation that he’s sometimes regarded as a pantheist. At the other end of the spectrum is the idea of God that many of us grew up with: a masculine Entity with a distinct existence of His own apart from creation.
LEE: Whether or not one is a believer, I think that's a worthwhile thing to consider: what need, function, or purpose in your life does your belief meet?
As for religious commonality - I don't see it. I see very different beliefs, particularly when you look at the schism formed by the Abrahamic tradition (Judism, Christianity, Islam) in regards to the issue of a "personal" god.
To me, the other biggie is free will. Some folks believe that God sorted everyone out before they were born, and predestined them for salvation or perdition. Some folks don't. The difference in how you view the world is large.
While the Judeo-Christian, Buddhist and animist may have very different theologies, parables, views of the afterlife and rituals, they will all have some common ground in what constitutes "just" or "godly" behavior.
I have no problem seeing a divine unifying thread there. But I'm a bit of a secular humanist combined with a syncretist.
Although I remember hearing that Mother Theresa respected other peoples beliefs as being just as valid and I expect she had seen some pretty tough times.
Paul, you say you see a trend toward fundamentalism and you say you think fundamentalism often "works against peace, common purpose, and unity in the world." In the blogs there is discussion about this very thing. What I would like to know from you is what religions and Christian denominations you are talking about. For instance, do you include the Roman Catholic church in this category? How about Methodists and Baptists?
Hazzbuzz, I think you are correct about Mother Teresa and her respect for most other religions. According to a small book I have about her, she "did not fully undertake an entirely universal approach", but she moved in that direction. It is said she urged a wealthy person to build a mosque in Yemen so that her Muslim brothers and sisters would have a place to be with God. I think Mother Teresa is someone worth emulating.
Dennis, I recall a Catholic religious leader say that the church (one could say religion, too) is the threshhold to spirituality.
Also, I was impressed when I heard a religious author say recently that religion is the language used to express a cosmic view. I really like the way that was put.
and ... oh ... what to say?
paul, i agree, about the balance of power thing - the notion of a sort of arrogance of belief, knowing one's religious group holds a huge balance of power. and ... then methinks that this balance of power sort of becomes 'the worshipped', rather than a vehicle to attaining higher spiritual goals, getting closer to g-d, etc.
and ... the twisted irony of the entity built to access/worship/glorify g-d becoming, itself, the g-d ... has not gone lost on me. call me a cynic, perhaps.
to have groups with differing religious beliefs compete over who is 'right' ... just diminishes - ie politicize - religion and makes spirituality a commodity.
so ... i guess - when i look @ the furor over the infamous danish cartoons, and the growing fundamentalism sneaking its way into state politics ... etc etc ... i see the fractured part.
but ... personally - i believe, indeed, more than one path leads to g-d ... or home .. or rome ... or whatever you wanna call it. and, i just cannot forget that jesus was himself a jew, one who often defied the religious customs of the time and one who rubbed shoulders with the so-called 'sinners' ...
so - what i am saying is: i dunno why so many are fixated on the 'rightness' of their beliefs ... i just think rightness lies not in theological logic or correctness somuchas in the degree to which we can follow the example of jesus - love your neighbour as yourself ... judge no one ... etc etc.
HAZZBUZZ: Your comment brings to mind the distinction between tolerance and validation as truth. Without knowing much about Mother Theresa, I wonder if she saw non Christian beliefs as equally valid in the sense of being equally true; or whether she may have seen them as valid in the sense of being alternate paths to God – up until the end time with Christ’s second coming and the validation of Christianity?
DENNIS: I don’t really know the answer to my own question in this post. On the one hand, as you say, there seems to be a lot of energy being devoted to making the journey. On the other hand, in so far as making the journey is a matter of embracing a set of beliefs that are said to describe ultimate reality and how the big picture really works – the 12 gods of Mt. Olympus, Christ’s victorious return and the general resurrection of the dead, reincarnation, etc. – the picture to me looks fractured.
SUSIE Q: In referring to fundamentalism I didn’t have any particular denominations in mind. For example, I have an aunt who’s a Sister of the Holy Cross. Her outlook is along the same lines that you and Hazzbuzz describe concerning Mother Theresa. But I’ve also known Catholics who are parochial minded and have the attitude that you’d better believe what they believe – or else… (the fiery furnace…)
It may be that certain denominations tend to be more fundamentalist – ? But again, this doesn’t happen to be my personal experience. I had friends in Virginia who were… gosh, I forget what. In any case, a southern Protestant denomination. But while they had definite beliefs, they didn’t have that shrill and angry sounding tone that I associate with fundamentalism. They didn’t condemn people who thought differently.
RED M: A kind of shorthand I have for what you’re describing is when people get their god mixed up with their ego - I suppose because of the similar spelling…
Sounds like you’re saying that in your view, behavior matters more than belief. I think in some circles that’s heresy! They’d say we’re all sinners at the core, salvation is the freely given gift of God and nobody really deserves it – except, apparently, people who believe this!
Speaking of irony, that really is a stupefying one – that there should be anti Semites among, of all denominations, Christians, whose faith centers on a Jewish man who they believe was the Messiah.
funny comment you left at my blog! thanks for the laugh...and yeah they too have a life! ;)
It’s both, isn’t it? For example, we’ve seen Roman Catholicism suffering at the same time Christian Fundamentalist ideas are gaining in popularity. Middle Eastern religions are receiving press as are, apparently, worshippers of ancient religions.
In the end, I think what we believe is a conglomeration of what we’ve been taught as children, what we’ve heard beyond that, what we’ve discovered for ourselves, and what new ideas we open ourselves to. Research into ancient beliefs as well as new scientific developments enrich our knowledge base, giving us more information about how (and perhaps why) life works. We latch onto what resonates with us or what serves us or even what scares us, and then make a decision to promote those beliefs, perpetuating the ideas we embrace while trying to make sure others do the same, thus reassuring ourselves that we’ve made the right choice.
I think the world’s various beliefs (religious or spiritual) will always be both thriving in their diversity and fragmented, depending on a whole host of supporting events – politics, education, the advancement of science, new discoveries of ancient worlds, and constant dialogue among the world’s numerous religious factions. That we are all One is an idea whose time hasn’t yet come.
While only religious extremists would deny people the right to their own beliefs, how do we reconcile an interest in truth with personalized religious beliefs tailor made to suit individual needs?
KATHY: See my question to Janice above…
I still say Blake would have had to revise his philosophy if he’d ever met one of those really big cockroaches like they have in Florida. “On the one hand, there’s life; on the other, there’s cockroaches” – that would have been your Blake quotation right there, and I bet the Buddha never met a really big roach either...
JA LOCKHART: I’m wondering in what sense you feel that god as a creation designed to fit human needs takes away from people being responsible for their actions. Some would say that their religious beliefs make them behave more responsibly…
HAZZBUZZ: From that perspective –looking at religious belief from the outside – it seems to me too that it has to be impossible to decide which belief system is true. If any one system were demonstrably true, or even just obviously much more likely, then there wouldn’t be the consensus problem I mention above in replying to Janice, and everyone would convert to the obvious truth.
PAULINE: Sounds like you see the diversity/fragmentation as a kind of energetic exploration that holds some promise for eventual agreement, but not for a long time.
MARISSA: That sounds like it must be true - that the interest in alternative beliefs is an indicator that the major traditions aren’t working for large numbers of people. At the same time, we see a world wide expansion of fundamentalism, both Christian and Muslim. So to me it’s a mixed and frankly confusing picture. You wonder how it will sort out.
My need is based on truth, not what everyone maintains is truth therefore I must personally experience and apply to my life that which I am seeking the truth about. I don't assume anything. If I am told for example, I must always go to church in order to be spiritual than I am going to question that to see what validity there is to that statement. The same would be true if told the opposite. In this way I am "personalizing", if you will, my spiritual beliefs. If a statement in its whole context in let's say Buddhism for example, says something that resonates then I will look for that experience in order to validate its truth. The same is true for any religion. This is how I reconcile the search for truth with religious beliefs. If that seems to be a tailoring then indeed I am guilty but to me truth must be first experienced and then applied to life in order to have validity.
Compared to 50 or more years ago, I see the various Christian denominations moving away from parochialism (fundamentalism) today rather than toward it. I base this on my own experiences growing up Catholic during the 40's and 50's. I could tell you plenty about parochialism back then.
What appears to be a resurgence of fundamentalism in the Christian community may be due to the growing involvement of the evangelicals in our politics. They were sort of off by themselves in a world all their own and invisible until they got involved. I see their involvement as a backlash to what was happening to our culture during the 60's and 70's.
One thing I see happening today is that the atheist/agnostic community is becoming less and less tolerant of religion and people of faith. There is a tendency with some people to blame religion for the ills of the world. I see this happening in the blogs. There appears to be a small movement underway to get rid of religion. Maybe this is not all bad, because religion has enjoyed perhaps too much protection in the past and should be held more accountable.
The problem I see with personalizing religion to fit one's needs and picking and choosing is that a person might get mired down spiritually due to inconsistencies. Things have to make sense, go together, even when it comes to religious beliefs. I think we still need our religious gurus and our religious institutions to be there to sort through things for us.
Do you really think we need to agree on everything in religion, except for some basic things such as how to treat our fellow man, in order for there to be peace and a working together on common causes?
SUSIE Q: I wouldn't want to pretend to be an expert on fundamentalism and I've noticed the same thing that you have re. Catholicism.
And like you say, there are many variationss of both Islam and Christianity. Also, I'd want to distinguish fundamentalism from fanaticism or extremism, in which people do violence supposedly in the name of God. You can certainly be a fundamentalist - or, as you suggest, the prevailing term with Christians seems to be evangelical - without being violent! You can be an evangelical and be a great human being.
I've noticed that in the blogs too. Some atheists see religion as pure evil. Some religious conservatives identify atheism with immorality. I think these positions are equally incorrect.
Many people do respond well to the structure provided by religious institutions and some people undoubtedly get mired down trying to find their own way. It may be that there are benefits and risks associated with both approaches.
As to your question at the end, no, I don't think people need to agree on matters of religion to work together. People all over the world demonstrate that every day. Ya just kind of wish everybody would catch on!
i don't recall implying i believe a particular path leads to salvation. in fact, i was decrying those that do believe that. it is not for me to judge. i don't presume to know for any collective, the truth. i only can express my own truth.
and i believe janice is right, about truth. my understanding of g-d and how to apply my life to him ... it is based on my own truth. and certainly NOT on the opinion of some nebulous, impersonal collective. perhaps this is what you mean by personalized. but ... truth is personal ... and it is not a need. it just is - as in our state of being.
as to the flourished or fractured question. i do not think this is a case of mutual exclusivity. i think the answer is both.
I wasn't trying to imply that you believe "a particular path leads to salvation," just trying to paraphrase.
You essentially said "righteousness is found more in following the example of Jesus than theological logic or correctness."
I wrote "Sounds like you’re saying that in your view, behavior {= following the example of Jesus} matters more than belief (= theological logic or correctness}."
The Greek Orthodox Church nailed another nail to their coffin with such judgmental statement.
Relax... I'd say, all of it is sooooo very symbloc
Have a great weekend Paul
By "soooo very symbolic" do you mean that religious beliefs are nothing more than symbolism?
I think that most or probably more like all believers would say that their beliefs are not primarily symbolic; that even if they aren't literal, they point toward something in the realm of fact - something that goes beyond the believer's own mind.
SUSIE Q: I think so too. I appreciate you visiting as a "regular" because sometimes we do differ in certain areas - although more often than not it seems to me that we just appear to differ and it turns out that we don't, or not much. Yet we can keep talking and understand each other. I think it's similar with me and Crystal.
So it illustrates something we just now agreed on - that people don't have to think about these things just the same way to be able to relate to each other constructively.
to illustrate with a simple example: is it good enuf to just believe that i should wear my seatbelt ... to know all the science, and studies and logic behind the seatbelt laws, to know what could happen if i do not wear it?
or do i actually need to put that into practice - ie wear it - in order to receive its protection? the answer seems clear, to me, i think.
belief and theology seems quite useless, unless one is prepared to act on them. my thoughts here. do i make sense?
Thing is, with religions being based on faith and belief in some entity that none have laid eyes on, how can one say that this is the way or that that is the way? (Jesus said the same thing...."some will say I am here or I am there...but, go not there")
I walk a thin line now-a-days and search even harder for correct answers though I am terribly sure none will be fothcoming.
Having just found out that the Jews had actually been altering the old testament for centuries (till near fifty years or so of Jesus' birth) is what got the thing rolling in me.
I've never been one to believe that the original authors rolled their eyes back in their head while the hand of GOD wrote the words onto their pages, but, I DID figure it to be theclosest thing to accurate of the feelings they had in that time. The idea was that the closer one was to the actual event, the better the information was.
So it turns out that the scriptures of Jesus' time were no better than the Jehovah's Witness bibles of today, altered to present the one side, the one view.....
Dang!
Then I find out that none of the gospels were written by anyone who knew Jesus personally....another blow! Double dang!!
Down deep I knew the answer that keeps rising in me.
The face of the entity doesn't matter.
The name of the entity doesn't matter.
The message means nothing, either, if it isn't true, eh?
What does count, though, would be what we feel when communicating with our entity through the spirit. John puts it like this (actually John's disciple, not the disciple Jesus loved best)....
GOD is a SPIRIT and the way to worship is through the spirit and the truth.
'Course, that seems a bit redundant. I fully understand the idea of worshipping through the spirit, but, I can't imagine that anyone could lie while in the spirit, eh?
So, would it help or hurt to mention that many Sons of GOD came to earth for the women and the wine, and that maybe they were the very "gods" spoken of?
Where I live there are many, many different sects of fundamentalist thought that all seem to focus on belief rather than Christ-like behavior. Many of the beliefs, like going to hell for letting a dog in your house, seem very strange to me. I am evidently going to hell on so many levels.
They all seem to share the thought that belief rather than action is the cornerstone for salvation. Once one is "saved", then that acts as a sort of "get out of jail free" card.
My feeling is that this is rather 2nd century thinking. My feeling is that once one accepts a belief system, that is only the beginning and that by focusing merely on the belief aspect that it retards the growth of one's faith.
I was discussing this with one of my local sources and she said that her husband used to say, "You need to give your prayers 'legs'".
ROSIE: Although the "believe or go to hell" concept is very much present in the Bible, there must be many people, including many Christians, who'd agree today that this isn't a satisfactory religious belief. An over emphasis on belief as potential spiritual impediment - I see what you mean.
These new age revisits to the ancients are a testimony to the failure of the manistream religions to be distinct or appealing. Most of our big time religions all borrowed a few things from these archaic 'starter' cults anyway.
(you don't want to get me started on the judeo/christian plagarism of the babylonian floody floody)
The present day free for all is a testament to the true power of political correctness and our cultural implosion of certitude and blind devotion...it is no mere accident that the fastest growing segment of society is the non-religious group..now that so much information about belief systems is readily available people can reach their own conclusions (pun intended) in no time at all.
end of sermon.
As to the non religious group being the fastest growing in society - Canada? The US? World wide? Sometimes you get the opposite impression. Certainly fundamentalism has been on the rise in some places...
Post a Comment