Intolerant Tolerance, or Where’s the Transcendence?
Is dumbing down religion to being nothing more than one more social service the answer to what ills the world? (written in response to a video suggested by Dean, a friend)
Way to go Dean. Very cool. Let’s discuss. However this is an example of the problem I am trying to address. On the one hand I agree with everything she says here about militant and aggressive fundamentalism. But is “dumbing down” religion to being nothing more than one more social service the answer? While the video was INCREDIBLY well done which I like, if you note God or any other sense of a transcendent Reality outside the Matrix is not even mentioned. The “uplifting positive” part of the video is all about being nice to each other. Is this a new approach to religion or is it merely liberal humanism dolled up in pseudo-religious garb? When that guy in the video says that fundamentalism is a reaction to social injustice etc he is only half right. It is also a reaction to watering down spirituality until it is nothing more than a social lubricant reminding us to watch our table manners.
This is Thomas Merton’s PLURALISTIC definition of the purpose of religion, which I agree with:
“…in all religions it is more or less generally recognized that this profound “sapiential” experience, call it gnosis, contemplation, “mysticism”, “prophecy” or what you will, represents the deepest most authentic fruit of the religion itself. All religions then, seek a “summit” of holiness, of experience, of inner transformation to which their believers – or an elite of believers – aspire because they hope, so to speak, to incarnate in their own lives the highest values in which they believe. To put it in grossly oversimplified language, all religions aspire to a “union with God” in some way or another….”
Also I wonder it there is any room here at all for constructive criticism. Like so many liberal religious types what is implicit here is that “tolerance, acceptance, and respecting differences” trump all else. Is there any way to argue any more about religion? Has our American injunction to “never argue about politics or religion” become the be all and end all? Is not causing any waves at all about religion for fear of ruining the cocktail party the only rational response to fundamentalism? Is the best we can do is just agree to disagree so we can get down to the business of building more soup kitchens?
Thomas Merton (who was a worldly monk by the way) set out the guidelines for pluralistic research back in the sixties. I agree with it and I get frustrated when I realize how little has been accomplished since then in this regard:
“…genuine pluralism requires the communication and sharing, not only of information about doctrines which are totally and irrevocably divergent, but also of religious intuitions and truths which may turn out to have something in common, beneath surface differences. Pluralism seeks the inner and ultimate spiritual “ground” which underlies all dogmatic differences.
A genuinely fruitful dialogue cannot be content with a polite diplomatic interest in other religions and their beliefs. It seeks a deeper level, on which religious traditions have always claimed to bear witness to a higher and more personal knowledge of Truth than that which is contained simply in exterior worship and formulated doctrine.”
In other words we have get beyond “polite” tolerance without becoming fundamentalists and that is what I want to do.
Finally there is another form of compassion that I wonder if these people would respect. When a doctor shows a drunk an x-ray of his burnt out liver is he being cruel or compassionate? I hope and pray that I am a compassionate guy, but if Rodney King’s “why don’t we all learn to get along” was the way out of our current spiritual crisis then spirituality would’ve been a settled issue long ago.
In short, I am TOTALLY pluralistic, but that does not mean that religion/spirituality is only a matter of taste. The message here is that religion is strictly a matter of taste and the only thing all religions agree on is that we should be “nice.” I don’t buy into this. I agree with Merton. What is also common in one way or another is what Christ said when asked for his definition of the most important commandment. “You must love the Lord thy God —- Self, Truth, Reality, Universe, or any damn name you want – with your whole heart and your whole soul and your whole mind and your whole strength AND love your neighbor as yourself.
The way out of the thicket of competing theologies is not to just declare theology or philosophy or whatever you want to call it irrelevant. By lopping off the first half of Christ’s dictum, this video wants unity through the lowest common denominator. Doesn’t take genius to do that. And it won’t work precisely because people want more from religion than compassion, which here is more or less defined in terms of serving PHYSICAL NOT SPIRITUAL needs. Nothing here can solve the riddle of life and death or remove the splinter in the mind.
But again, this is a great idea that we need many more of. We now have to marketing challenge we will always face as we decide which other websites and organizations to team up with. Should I dumb down my own ideas listed above to fit in? Or should I try to “break the frame” of the conversation? If I break the frame I may be welcomed as a fresh voice raising fundamental issues or I may be considered too controversial. For most people controversial is ipso facto not compassionate. Religious/spiritual critique is ipso fact fundamentalism for most liberals. How controversial do we want me to be?
But net net the marketing questions posed above are good problems to have. And Brother John is a great essay on compassion that behind the compassionate point breaks the frame and introduces “tough spiritual love.” Thanks for sending this. Really enjoyed it.
Augie
Download a PDF Version of this Post
