Before I jump into today’s subject, looking upon the practice of religion as an art, I’ve got to comment on Church of the Churchless comments to my posts.
These offerings by other people are wonderful. Frequently I read them and think, “God, these are so much wiser and more meaningful than what I wrote.” Also, better written. I deeply appreciate these (almost) always thoughtful sharings. If you’re not reading the comments, you’re missing out on a big part of this blog.
Flowing into this notion of religion as art, via these comments I love to see, or at least get a glimpse into, how fellow churchless seekers of …whatever...view their seeking. There’s no right or wrong here. No truth or untruth. No better or worse.
Like art. Now, I’m exceedingly unartistic when it comes to the traditional arts such as painting and music. It would be entirely fair for someone to look upon my stick-figure drawings or off-key singing and say, “That’s really bad.”
So I’m not suggesting that all forms of art are beyond judgment, that you can’t reasonably pronounce this to be superior to that. However, when religion is considered as a purely subjective and personal art form, the usual rules of criticism don’t apply.
This is one of the insights I’ve gained (or inferred) from Don Cupitt’s “After God: The Future of Religion.”
Cupitt, like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and others, argues that traditional theistic religions are an anachronism. Their dogmas simply aren’t believable or acceptable in this modern world (notwithstanding the fact that most of the world’s inhabitants still accept, and will continue to accept, dogmas of one variety or another.)
Here’s what Cupitt concludes, speaking to those of us who can’t tolerate religion as it is, yet don’t want to discard what is worth saving from the religious impulse.
You may well be skeptical about the severely reconstructed notion of religion that I am putting forward. It seems to be religion without metaphysics, religion without creed, religion no longer focused around a power center outside ourselves, religion without a structure of authority, and religion without a gathered community of people who are very conscious of a clear line between themselves, the elect, and the rest of humanity.In place of all that, I am offering only religion as a toolkit, a small set of attitudes and techniques, by practicing which we can grow in self-knowledge (the Eye of God), learn to accept the transience and insubstantiality of ourselves and everything else (the Blissful Void), and learn to say a whole-hearted yes to life (Solar Living). Another item is yet to be added: it is the Poetical Theology, which is (briefly) a license to make whatever new use we can of the surviving scraps of vocabulary, ritual, and symbolism that are available to us.
Cupitt urges us to have fun with religion. Be creative with it. Indulge your artistic license. Write, produce, direct, and act in your own religious production. He finds a poetical strand in Christianity (and, I assume, other religions) that can be elaborated upon with unfettered delight.
It shows up whenever a religious theme is treated with a touch, or more than a touch, of irony, satire, self-mockery, or playfulness. It shows up when the normal hierarchies and valuations are mocked and reversed at feasts such as Carnival and Christmas. It shows up when believers consciously allow themselves to overelaborate their own myths—just in fun.…I am suggesting that we can and should now be uninhibited and eclectic in creating new religious meanings, practices, and narratives out of the materials available to us. The poetical theology will fiction and refiction our religion, tell and retell the old stories. What will make it a theology will be its use in helping ourselves to see ourselves and our life with a greater clarity of moral vision, in helping us to be “easy, going” about the transience of everything, and in showing us how to live ardently.
There’s nothing wrong with ritual, so long as it springs from the heart, isn’t taken super-seriously, and isn’t foisted on others. By and large my life is ritual free. But here and there, now and then, I enjoy indulging in some poetical theology.
My wife likes to have a moment of silence before she eats a meal. I usually don’t do this on my own. When we’re together it’s nice, though, to hold hands with Laurel, close my eyes, and utter a speechless prayer before chowing down. I don’t believe that any divine being is aware of what I’m doing. Yet I am. Which is all that matters.
In the morning I meditate for an hour or so. Even if I don’t get any uplift from raising my consciousness, the strong cup of coffee that I sip during my pre-meditation reading assures that I enjoy a bit of caffeine-fueled nirvana.
When I finish reading, I often find myself reverently holding the book’s cover to my forehead and intoning to the author (or Someone) “Thank you for this inspiration.” From the outside, this would look just like a fundamentalist Jew, Muslim, or Christian praising their holy book.
On my inside, I guess I’m doing just that. Except, I might be praising the newest title from scientists Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene. My “religious texts” span a broad horizon. This morning I found pre-meditation inspiration in Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion.”
Different strokes for different folks. That’s the beauty of looking upon religious practice as an art form.
You can Howl. As loud as you want. Without worrying about what the neighbors will think.
(Aside: I don’t think before today I’d ever read Ginsburg’s creation. Wow, he mentions Plotinus! We’re almost brothers.)
…who studied Plotinus Poe St. John of the Cross telepathy and bop kaballa because the cosmos instinctively vibrated at their feet in Kansas…
Brian- I like what you say about the value of the ‘comments’. These are golden. We are all prisoners of our own past upbringing, education and life experiences. These constrain our ability to be creative.
Comments convert monologue into a dialogue which allows us to discuss issues in an open way. Stephen Covey says we normally listen ‘with the intent to reply - not the intent to understand’
David Bohm says “people hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their views as they try to convince others to change".
The dialogue allows us to take a preferred position but not stay attached to it. We are ready to listen to others, and our mindset is not one of convincing others but rather of asking what we can learn from others. It is recognizing that their input will help us to refine your own ideas or adjust our point of view. It is not a fight. It is not win-loose. In dialogue all sides win by coming up with a more appropriate solution than a single person could ever have. It is win-win. It is what Stephen Covey calls ‘synergy’.
Synergy is where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It’s where we value our differences – where we respect each other and thus listen to other points of view. We suspend our own views - and focus on alternative views so they can mingle and merge with our own viewpoint.
Also through dialogue we can better see our own paradigms. By engaging in dialogue we can reveal other people’s paradigms to them and they in turn can reveal ours. This helps us all to see the world in a new and more appropriate ways and to destroy a lot of inappropriate assumptions and misinformation from our upbringing, education and life experiences. Thus our view point is expanded and our creativity blossoms.
Posted by: ET | October 16, 2006 at 03:16 AM
I believe strongly in one gift that has been given to our mind: the freedom of choice on how we want to perceive this world.
Just as a painter may decide how to mix the paints on his palette, we can do so mentally and observe the consequential effects.
Posted by: ben | October 16, 2006 at 06:24 AM
Wow, yes - Dante Alleghieri, Giordano Bruno, even Neal Donald Walsch (moue,) jump to mind. The activities of poetry and architecture are the same activities of spirit. I am sure I learned them that way.
I am purposely transposing the title here because for me the urge of expression is the same. Some literary histories place Enheduana, a Sumerian woman, as the person who wrote the first extant poem... in cunieform, as a prayer to a female deity.
To live poetically, allow someone else to read you aloud. Enheduana's experience of creation was identical to that of her goddess. And simultaneous. The community of music, meaning and meditation is where we find our lives created, even in a shrine, even in a cathedral.
When I worked on a Theravedan Buddhist temple in Massachusetts years ago, my only real contributions were my ability to form cement and a willingness to wash dishes. After some time, I decided to move on to a zendo. When I left, the stupa worshippers gathered on the porch of the house and drummed me down the hill, onto the highway. It is one of the holiest things in my life. Simply, I became alive.
Formalizing the constant experiences of our society into religion works for focusing energies, something Eliphias Levi certainly knew. He also knew it wasn't magic per se.
And it is the magical thinking of modern religions that needs some inspection.
I am so gald to be part of the discussion.
Posted by: Edward | October 16, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Edward:
Your statement, "It is one of the holiest things in my life. Simply, I became alive."
I would love to learn more, regarding what you meant by the above statement.
If you desire, collect your thoughts, and write a comment.....
Best wishes,
Roger
Posted by: Roger | October 17, 2006 at 08:37 AM
Brian, this is why I consider this site a sort of temple of knowlegde in my modern life. You, like the best sophists of history, teach through the lens of your own journey, and the brilliance of *light* is refracted in the recounting of it to us.
Yes, Edward, the magical thinking of modern (and even ancient) religion does need some inspecting. And then, just like good video or ventriloquism, magic requires the willing suspension of 'reality' to really enjoy it. I'm happy to peek behind the curtain, but I still happily get goosebumps when I am able to hear The Great Oz speak.
I think the Buddhists have it right when they say all we experience is just an illusion. But the special effects here on this plane -- like reading such profound and moving words -- oh, the special effects are magnificent.
Again, Brian, thank you for creating this environment of sharing and wisdom. What a happy acceident that we are alive in the same time and space and I am able to know your mind and heart a little.
Jeanine
Posted by: benandante | October 17, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Roger,
The two tie together: I am who am at sanctification.
When there is a convergence of a) the common consciousness, through established ritual; b) my consciousness, through active participation in the immediate society; and c) the conscious action of other individuals, through choosing to also participate simultaneously, life knows itself.
So I could say, wow that was one of the nicest things anyone ever did for me. But this is the same activity they do when they are venerating the stupa. I could say what a silly ritual, but I also know that this is the cement of their community. So it has little to do with religion, little to do with my ego, and little to do with whatever personal aims these people have.
So it was at my wedding. There were hundreds of dragons in the gorge that morning, scores of sprites and oriads at the falls. I guess I characterize these as “some of the holiest” because I felt profoundly that I had vaulted into being aware. Call it being in the moment; call it a peak or an out-of-body experience.
And I have learned that it is holy to eat birthday cake with someone. It is holy to go to a homecoming game at the high school. Ray Freed has in a poem, that when you see a friend passes the café where you are eating, quickly settle the bill and greet them. In perpetual creation, each step is a coming alive.
Posted by: Edward | October 18, 2006 at 06:33 AM
Edward,
Thanks for the discussion. I liked your statement, "I felt profoundly that I had vaulted into being aware."
I wonder, "Can the Awareness, the Enlightenment, be expanded to something refered to as Divine Awareness, or Divine Enlightenment?"
Unfortunately, I have my membership in the "I Don't Know" club.
That's ok, No big Deal, however, I still wonder about this divine realm.
Food for thought.........
Posted by: Roger | October 18, 2006 at 07:53 AM
Once you position awareness as having a "Divine" or "other" realm, then of course it is sensible to say "I don't know." That is the purpose of constructing a cosmos that has at least one mystery. The mystery becomes the container for the other, the alien.
God as personal god is necessary in order to work out spiritual devision of the personality.
God as embodied in animals is necessary to understanding the activities of the food chain.
God is jealous when we need to be united. God is multi-breasted when we need to control our nutrition.
God is fragmented awareness when we need to delay and segment our commitment to morality.
My experience is that there is an anti-entropic force in the universe. Things in my life change in the direction of both growth and decay. When my awareness increases, I expand into the previously unknown.
If the unknown is the mysterious container of the Divine, then this awareness is Divine Awareness. If the unknown is the land of the elves, I receive direct communication with the little people.
Really, though, no separation.
Posted by: Edward | October 18, 2006 at 08:56 AM
ha ha...........At the next communication with the little people.........take lots of notes........I will be waiting with more persistant irritating questions.........
Posted by: Roger | October 18, 2006 at 09:40 AM
Devine on the right...profane on the left. Two ends of the same stick!
Posted by: Arlo R. Hansen | October 23, 2006 at 01:01 PM