Hi Michael:

I agree, but I think post-modern seekers also want truth. Not the truth of traditionalist, doctrinal or dogmatic Christianity—they've had that one shoved down their throats, and had quite enough of it—but some kind of universal truth that ought to be there if there is a spiritual reality at all.

By the way, thanks for the tip about lulu.com. My agent has been trying—unsuccessfully, so far—to find a publisher for a book I wrote. If she doesn't find one soon, I'll try lulu.com

Hi Arminius,

As an advocate for "traditionalist, doctrinal or dogmatic Christianity" I can make a strong argument for my truth while respecting that others have their own version of truth or no truth at all.  This is the post-modern secret...confidence that what I believe is not compromised by the fact that others disagree.  I'm all for "universal truth" if it is merely a label for something that others can enjoy without suggesting that I accept it.  My truth is Jesus: full stop.  But I never do any shoving of throats.

mk

No, Michael, I didn't think you would. Unfortunately, it was done a lot 50 years ago, when I was young, and most of Christian religion was still quite fundamentalist and self-righteously absolutist.

Hi Michael and Arminius, 

Growing up in the United Church (approximately) 50 years ago, I did not experience the Christian religion as fundamentalist or self-righteously absolutist.  

Central United Church in Weston was the church of my childhood.

Hi paradox3:

I'm talking about the Evangelical Lutheran Church of my childhood and youth, which I left at age 24 because of its absolutist stance.

Had I known church then as I do the UCC now, I may never have left. But I have no regrets. My forays through atheism anf several of the world's religions brought me to where I am today.

Don't get me wrong, Michael and paradox3, I am not against doctrinal religion. I regard it as a necessary stage of personal and societal, spiritual evolution. I myself evolved beyond it, but I also include it in my present spirituality, as a nececssary evolutionary stage that I carried forward with me, and that is still with me.

I regard religion as evolving from doctrinal to atheistic to to pluralistic to inclusive to integral, with the latter integrating all of the former, whereas each of the former may regard only itself as valid, and the others invalid.

My problem with traditionalist, doctrinal, dogmatic  is that the tendency to absolutism is inherent in it, at which point it does become a "my truth is the only truth". It isn't only the Christian faith, of course, but others as well.  The minute we assert our own faith has "the only" truth, we end up being absolutist and narrow, and miss the other truths which are out there.

Hi Fran, 

Yes, I agree with you about "my truth is the only truth" being problematic.  And I would have to say that my religious upbringing taught me a "soft" version of this thinking.  In those days, I didn't have the words for it, but I think I grew up with a "universalist" view of salvation within the Christian tradition.

We have much to learn from other faith traditions.  Harold Kushner said in one of his books that "he who knows only one religion knows no religion".  I think he was quoting another writer with this comment.

Hi Fran and paradox3:

Gretta Vosper, whom both of you know personally, said religion was divisive. She did, however, not say which aspect of religion is divisive.

I think religious experience is not at all divisive. On the contrary, it is profoundly unifying! It is, after all, a unitive experience, uniting us humans with each other and the world, and, if we are lucky, or very persistent or pious, with God.

What is divisive about religion is its doctrines. Not really its mythologies or teachings, but the doctrines that have been distilled from those, and are assumed to be absolutely true.

In other words, it is the absoluteness inherent in religious doctrine—or any other doctrine, including "Vosperianism"—that is divisive, not religion itself.

A little philosophy tends one's mind to atheism, but depths in philosophy turns one's mind to religion.

-Francis Bacon

Arminius, this is it in a nutshell - which of course is why I try to stay well away from doctrines...

"What is divisive about religion is its doctrines. Not really its mythologies or teachings, but the doctrines that have been distilled from those, and are assumed to be absolutely true."

Hi Fran and Arminius, 

Is it possible to stay completely away from doctrine?  Dogma, I think, can be avoided. 

How do you differentiate between the mythology and teaching of a wisdom tradition and its doctrine? 

Even Unitarianism, which is a non-creedal faith tradition, has a set of guiding principles.  Wouldn't the Unitarian principles be doctrine of a sort?

Hi paradox3:

In the practical world it is difficult if not impossible to stay away entirely from doctrine. Each statement comes across as doctrinal, including the very words I am writing. They do not sound speculative, they aren't meant to be metaphorical. They are what I happen to think at the moment of writing, but are not absolutely true. I am with Socrates: "I know that I don't know." For this relativistic stance, however, Socrates was sentenced to death for poisoning the minds of the youths of Athens.

Doctrine becomes potentially dangerous only when it hardens into dogma. But there is fine line dividing the two. When doctrine is believed in absolutely, it is dogma. When doctrine is believed in relatively, it ceases to be doctrine.

Every religion or belief system has what one might call a "doctrine." Only the purely mystical strains of religion are entirely without doctrine, and they are not suitable for everyone. Buddhism, for instance, is doctrinal (although not heavily), but the spirituality of the Zen sect of Buddhism is entirely experiential. In Zen there are no teachings or doctrines; one just submits to the austere monkish practice of hard work, simple living, prayer and meditation, seeking spiritual experience and acting intuitively and dynamically directly from the depth of the experience.

It is, of course, necessary for us humans to think. But thinking, in Zen Buddhism, is also immediate dynamic action that arises directly from the spiritual experience. The practical action arising from such thinking is then, too, based on the direct, spiritual experience.

It may not be possible to do entirely without doctrine, but I think Christian spirituality is too one-sidedly doctrinal and not experiential enough. I think we Christians have to get away from being onsidedly doctrinal, become more spiritually experiential, and strike a healthy balance between the two.

The number one insight of our scientific age is relativism. Absolute truth is no longer possible; the viewpoint of the observer determines what is true. In this Age of Relativism it is more important than ever to discover spiritual experience as the source of experiential Truth, and shape one's life accordingly.

As I said before, doctrines tend to be divisive. Spiritual experience, on the other hand, is powerfully unitive simply because it is the ultimate unitive experience of at-one-ment with everyone and everything. The primitive albeit deeply mystical aboriginal spirituality of Canada expressed this aptly in their solemn benison: "All My Relations."

If this doctrine, then I'm doctrinal.

All My Relations,

Arminius

Hi Arminius, 

When it comes to faith, you are talking about a balance between intellectual understanding, mystical experience and action in the world.  Yes, I agree with you ... P3

Yes, paradox3, that's what I'm talking about. When we practice both, intellectual understanding and mystical experience, then one enhances and enriches the other, and the action that arises from the fruitful union between the two becomes more and more effective and divine.