By Andy Douglas
When religious scholar Reza Aslan spoke at the Englert recently, he faced a question from one man about violence toward women supposedly sanctioned in the Koran. Aslan thoughtfully dismissed the claim as misinterpretation, and spoke about how language can be translated and interpreted in many different ways (for example, should Jesus’ declaration in the Bible that he comes to bring a sword be taken literally?). And, he emphasized, it’s important which values the reader herself brings to the text.
There’s a fundamental and perhaps inherent thirst for meaning in us humans, and religion has evolved as one way to answer big questions. But as with any human endeavor, there’s a range of approaches when it comes to the ‘how.’
The U.S. Constitution protects religion’s practice and prohibits the government from favoring or disfavoring any religion. I daresay Trump’s Muslim ban contravenes this. As does a call for a return to our “nation’s Christian roots.”
We’re a nation grounded in the protection of religious liberty, but it’s untrue to say we were formed as a Christian nation. The founders, many of whom described themselves as ‘Deist,’ took pains to separate church and state.
Today our country’s religious landscape is changing. Dwindling numbers of behinds sit on mainline church pews. A growing contingent identify as Spiritual but Not Religious. Science provides impetus to rethink many beliefs. There’s an exchange of ideas between people of different cultures and faiths. We’re seeing wider embrace of inner technologies like meditation. The question of ‘how’ we live our spiritual lives is increasingly important.
I admire people of faith like Dorothy Day, practitioner of radical hospitality, who walked their walk.
And yet, intolerance and small-mindedness birthed by religious parochialism continue to plague us.
Psychologist James Fowler offers an interesting model for stages of faith. He describes the magical thinking of young children, evolving into an acceptance of literal interpretation of religious myths. In this stage, doubting is a serious sin. One accepts the supremacy of one’s group. Religion is about rewards and punishments, and God is a distant authority figure.
In the Individuative/Reflective stage, reevaluation of beliefs occurs. One finds more authority within. Inner work becomes the focus.
There may come a stage wherein paradox, mystery, transcendence, the unconscious, and metaphor are important. One tries to grasp the reality behind the symbols, the unity underlying diversity.
Fowler calls his final stage “Universalizing”: compassion, openness to Spirit, integrated energies, and love are predominant.
The implicit clash and contradiction in each stage’s underlying story leads to a shift to the next stage. Tradition is hard to escape, however, and people get stuck.
One criticism of Fowler’s model is that it’s hierarchical. Another model, put forth by John Mabry, focuses on faith styles in a more relative way. Mabry recognizes six types - traditional, spiritual eclectic, ethical humanist, liberal believer, religious agnostic and the “Jack” believer, who believes but can no longer exist within his tradition.
The rub with traditional religion, as I see it, is that when one commits to a belief, the tendency to see that belief as superior, and to exclude others, can take hold, if you’re not careful.
There’s a Buddhist term to describe what I’m talking about: Upaya, ‘skillful means.’ Upaya doesn’t concern itself with systems of belief, heaven or hell, salvation and damnation, but rather with how one lives. It’s the utilization of what works to contribute toward growth, what Thich Nhat Hanh calls “skillful religion.” It’s about practice, not belief, and leads to cultivating compassion, justice, rationality and forgiveness.
Religion, when it focuses on cooperative values, not exclusionary ones, can be a powerful and nourishing force. In these troubled times, may skillful means continue to grow.
When religious scholar Reza Aslan spoke at the Englert recently, he faced a question from one man about violence toward women supposedly sanctioned in the Koran. Aslan thoughtfully dismissed the claim as misinterpretation, and spoke about how language can be translated and interpreted in many different ways (for example, should Jesus’ declaration in the Bible that he comes to bring a sword be taken literally?). And, he emphasized, it’s important which values the reader herself brings to the text.
There’s a fundamental and perhaps inherent thirst for meaning in us humans, and religion has evolved as one way to answer big questions. But as with any human endeavor, there’s a range of approaches when it comes to the ‘how.’
The U.S. Constitution protects religion’s practice and prohibits the government from favoring or disfavoring any religion. I daresay Trump’s Muslim ban contravenes this. As does a call for a return to our “nation’s Christian roots.”
We’re a nation grounded in the protection of religious liberty, but it’s untrue to say we were formed as a Christian nation. The founders, many of whom described themselves as ‘Deist,’ took pains to separate church and state.
Today our country’s religious landscape is changing. Dwindling numbers of behinds sit on mainline church pews. A growing contingent identify as Spiritual but Not Religious. Science provides impetus to rethink many beliefs. There’s an exchange of ideas between people of different cultures and faiths. We’re seeing wider embrace of inner technologies like meditation. The question of ‘how’ we live our spiritual lives is increasingly important.
I admire people of faith like Dorothy Day, practitioner of radical hospitality, who walked their walk.
And yet, intolerance and small-mindedness birthed by religious parochialism continue to plague us.
Psychologist James Fowler offers an interesting model for stages of faith. He describes the magical thinking of young children, evolving into an acceptance of literal interpretation of religious myths. In this stage, doubting is a serious sin. One accepts the supremacy of one’s group. Religion is about rewards and punishments, and God is a distant authority figure.
In the Individuative/Reflective stage, reevaluation of beliefs occurs. One finds more authority within. Inner work becomes the focus.
There may come a stage wherein paradox, mystery, transcendence, the unconscious, and metaphor are important. One tries to grasp the reality behind the symbols, the unity underlying diversity.
Fowler calls his final stage “Universalizing”: compassion, openness to Spirit, integrated energies, and love are predominant.
The implicit clash and contradiction in each stage’s underlying story leads to a shift to the next stage. Tradition is hard to escape, however, and people get stuck.
One criticism of Fowler’s model is that it’s hierarchical. Another model, put forth by John Mabry, focuses on faith styles in a more relative way. Mabry recognizes six types - traditional, spiritual eclectic, ethical humanist, liberal believer, religious agnostic and the “Jack” believer, who believes but can no longer exist within his tradition.
The rub with traditional religion, as I see it, is that when one commits to a belief, the tendency to see that belief as superior, and to exclude others, can take hold, if you’re not careful.
There’s a Buddhist term to describe what I’m talking about: Upaya, ‘skillful means.’ Upaya doesn’t concern itself with systems of belief, heaven or hell, salvation and damnation, but rather with how one lives. It’s the utilization of what works to contribute toward growth, what Thich Nhat Hanh calls “skillful religion.” It’s about practice, not belief, and leads to cultivating compassion, justice, rationality and forgiveness.
Religion, when it focuses on cooperative values, not exclusionary ones, can be a powerful and nourishing force. In these troubled times, may skillful means continue to grow.