Meta-religion and the carnival
One of my bright ideas for this summer was to encourage a UU Blog Carnival. It’s in the development stage, with the pilot to be held in July, after the UUAGA (ugh! fo those of you who dislike acronyms). Already, a fellow blogger, for whom I have the utmost respect, has weighed in upon the topic I’ve chosen for the initial theme. She, like many UUs, is tired of hearing discussions about “purpose” and why we are “unique.” In her post, she offers some great suggestions for discussion, and a rationale.
I’m not going to criticize her post, but she’s gotten me thinking about the meta-ness of the blogosphere and religion in general. It’s a well-discussed topic, probably as much so as UU purpose, but I’m re-visiting it, with an aim to explain why I personally would benefit from a UU Blog Carnival.
Peacebang is right about the purpose talk. I’m a member of a covenant group at First UU in St. Louis, and we try as hard as we can to avoid that topic. A couple of weeks ago, I led a small group on “solace”, discussing what it is that grounds us. We found quite a bit of common ground, without discussing the particularity of why we are UU’s. At the end of our talk, I asked what UUism helps us find that basic grounding, or what we bring to UUism out of it. There was kind of an awkward pause.
In the interest of confidentiality, I’m not going to disclose more about our conversation (hopefully I haven’t said too much already). The point of a covenant group is to have a safe place to have these conversations, in a face-to-face sort of way. We did, though, come to some tentative conclusions about the connection between our UU faith practice and our personal spiritual ground (I prefer that term, as opposed to “Ultimate” or “The Real”, two other ways of describing this phenomenon).
The point I’m going to make in this post is that, in some ways, it is impossible not have have discussions about our teleology. Even Christians have the discussion, though it occurs in ways that we as UU’s don’t necessarily mimic. When you have a debate about the emerging church, or about subscription to confessional standards, or about fencing the Eucharist (or whether to call it ‘communion’, ‘the Eucharist’ or ‘the Lord’s Table’), you are engaging in a meta-religious discussion. What are our boundaries, what are our purposes, who are we?
Though I’m less acquainted (right now–I am continually trying to rectify this) with other religions, they do the same thing. The history of Hinduism is replete with this dynamic. “Hindu” itself doesn’t really denote one religion, but rather the multiplicity of religions on the Indian subcontinent. Buddhism, as well, has had groups emerge, with subtly differing understandings of dependent origination, the meaning of dukkha, and so on. These are discussions about soteriology (how we are saved), but cannot be separated from ecclesiology (who we are as a church/community).
Religious sensibility can never be only from-to (a shorthand way of describing the worshipper’s blissful focus on an object). There is a constant reflection on the path of the from-to, an adjusting of vectors, so to speak. And insofar as religion is a uniquely human phenomenon, I find that apt. After all, the reflexive capabilities of human consciousness make us unique. While dolphins and apes have rudimentary pseudo-linguistic skills, naming themselves and others, pointing to objects and counting, we don’t (yet) have evidence that they reflect on their language, or reflect on that reflection.
C.S. Lewis, in Perelandra, a science fiction religious allegory composed of a sort of actual possible world (Venus), makes an argument that this reflexiveness is part of the fall. His female protagonist encounters Ransom, a space-traveler Christ figure who is sent to Venus to prevent the fall on that planet. The Venusian Eve is perplexed at Ransom’s way of thinking, his turned-inwardness. She is in a state of innocent ‘from-to’, if you will.
While I have sympathies with many aspects of Christian ethics, I find the doctrine of original sin, presented via the historical fall, troubling. It suggests to me that our rationality, our humanness, is innately full of pride and sin. I disagree with Lewis (on my reading of Perelandra, at least), though I do believe that our reflection on our living vectors can become prideful, an occasion for myopia and missing the forest for the trees. But how do we know if our aim is good, if we do not spend some time looking at ourselves with regard to the target? Or analyzing whether the target is worthy?
In this kind of reflective process, a community effort is necessary because none of us is in a transhistorical, transpersonal and omniscient perspective to make this kind of ’spiritual alignment.’ We need others, and we probably need more than just one or two. Of course, where two or three are gathered, the problems in alignment are multiplied exponentially. Hence the need for our goals and life to be in constant revision. Even determining what the boundaries of revision are require dialogue. This process is in danger of throwing us into an infinite regress, but a recognition of our imperfection can prevent stalled movement, the kind which occurs when we lament how impossible it is to ever know conclusively.
Finally, while the discussion can get tiring (I am one of those who gets tired, and wonders whether I might not wind up as a Buddhist eventually, rather than a UU), it may be helpful if we adjust our perspective in two ways:
1. The discussion itself can be part of our worship and spiritual life. While not exclusively what we do, defining our purpose (qua denomination, congregation and individual) can be a spiritual discipline. It is a task requiring listening, thinking, meditation, and engaging with history as well people. That sounds like the task that I had as a Christian whenever I took up the Holy Scriptures. If we are intent on defining human experience and wisdom as ongoing revelation, then oughtn’t we work out some kind of hermeneutic? What I’ve sketched above would be a start, perhaps.
2. Consider the conversation in more than a here-now perspective. We are part of an ongoing religious tradition which includes many other religions. This is where the “aren’t we unique, we’re UU’s” can be a misfire. The Buddha asks that anyone interested in following his path test it against their own experience. Christianity has its fair share of critical theologians and radical prophets. Etc. Seeing ourselves as one among many, and our conversation as stretching throughout time may help the frustration with feeling that it’s gone on too long.
So, to bring a lengthy post to a close, I think that I would greatly benefit from another way of extending this conversation. I’m looking forward to meeting bloggers in person in a week or so. I enjoy the interaction of my covenant group and friends because of the richness of bodily living (I don’t want to be a disembodied Internet brain–even if sometimes I feel I’m heading that way). Yet having a cross-pollination of bloggers from Boston, California, etc. etc. is healthy to me. Consider it a meta-covenant group, with rotating members who meet monthly. It has the possibility to be more than just endless talk, but to be an impetus for worship and an emerging hermeneutic for interpreting the wisdom of humanity.
** For those of you interested in more on the ‘from-to’ that I’ve hinted at, Michael Polanyi is a philosopher who unpacks this in the realm of science and knowledge.