A problem that's not actually a problem.
And "solutions" that are waaaaaaay more problematic...
Today, I encountered an age-old challenge:
The problem is there is no singular condensed resource that explains how these spiritual practices all connect in a direct way.
This is more of a feature than a bug.
There has been a pluralism of lineages of spiritual practices and institutional religion for as long as those human impulses have existed.
Variations and variants of practices tend to be the norm, unless there is an institutional authority that decides what constitutes:
Orthodoxy (“right” thing to believe)
Orthopraxy (“right” thing to practice)
What’s in the canon and what’s apocryphal (that is, what is “true”)
Who’s in and who’s out
Of who’s in, then who matters, and who doesn’t
Generally there never is one singular, authoritative text or version of any practice in any tradition. Hence a zillion different splinters or variants within most every spiritual tradition…I can’t even count the number of various forms and sects and denominations of Christianity, and it’s my profession.
Either a religious organization or spiritual group will:
Come to [forced] agreement (often through ecclesiastical or state authority)
Split off and form new branch or church altogether
Deliberately be theologically plural (rare)
The first two options comes at the cost of losing a lot of spiritual wisdom to the sands of time and banishing a fair number of “heretics” if the “authorities” even permit heresy.
Usually, they’d expel or execute heretics.
Now that’s one way to get people to go to church.
I believe and practice spiritual pluralism in my religious life and leadership.
Admittedly, as an institutional leader, it’s a helluva lot harder to teach, preach, and nurture community that is plural.
Worth it. So many strengths, so much beauty.
But. Not. Easy.
Preach to the mystic, the atheist, and spiritual but not religious, the Jewish-Christian interfaith couple, the person who believes in God (but can only whisper that to me in my office for fear of disparagement), the person recovering from religious trauma, the person who has had personal experiences with Jesus, the people who prefer the old hymnal and liturgy, the people who prefer the new lyrics to the old hymns, and so on.
Let’s not get started about the color of the pew cushions.
(I’m pretty sure that’s the real reason for the formation of the Anglican church).
Now, preach to them all in one sermon at the same time in the same sanctuary…go!
This is gonna be better than Iron Chef.
Sometimes, it seemed like Jesus had an easier task to walk on water.
That was my work for a good decade. I utterly loved it.
It is harder to build a church that way?
Usually. Actually, hell yes.
But what is the alternative—when taken to the extreme?
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.
—Baudelaire
History is pretty ugly when it comes to heresy.
I’d prefer not to be burned at the stake, nor live in a heretic-burning society.
But today the powers that be don’t need stakes.
They’re just sneakier.
Sometimes the less obvious oppression is, the more powerful it can wield.
It is much, much easier to preach to a room of people who all believe the same thing. Or are forced to.
It is much, much easier for the forces of empire to control people with one authoritative “religious” system.
Not happening you say?
A system of “belief” that tolerates no other, defines its own “alternative” facts, and decides what people’s history gets to be told?
Beware when ecclesiastical, state, or any other kind of power consolidates:
The “right” thing to believe (orthodoxy) (de-fund the department of education)
The “right” thing to do (or not do) (orthopraxy — overturn Roe v Wade anyone?)
What kind of information is true and valid (alternative facts FTW!)
What kind of information is not (banned books, Black history…)
Who’s in and who’s out (the latter group is growing by the day)
Of who’s in, then who matters, and who doesn’t (quick tip—check their net worth)
Who is worth “saving”
Who gets “saved”
Cut healthcare—a basic human right—for people who don’t fit particular identities or belief systems? Limit their access to care and types of care based upon the religious opinions of a powerful minority about who matters, who doesn’t, who’s in, who’s out…sound familiar?
A trillion-dollar cut to Medicaid may cost 51,000 lives a year.Put another way, these “budget” decisions will likely kill 51,000 people a year.
By depriving them—hold up, that’s all of US—of health care, which is a basic human right.
Now, who gets to be “saved” here?
I get very, VERY tired of hearing:
Let’s be respectful and keep politics out of this.THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS.
THIS IS ABOUT MORALITY, ETHICS, and BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
THAT IS ACTUALLY MY PROFESSION.
IT IS ACTUALLY MY JOB TO SAY SOMETHING.
People.
We not talking about forms of governance or policy.
We are talking about willfully killing people with a stroke of a pen.
(I wish this were the only example…)
Try this fun game:
Anytime you hear news about
“them” | “that group” | “recipients” | “undocumented” et cetera ad inifinitum
Change it to:
We | Us | I | Me | You | My child | My family
Now, repeat the revised headline out loud. To yourself.
See how it hits.
Usually, they’d expel or execute heretics.
Now, they’re just sneakier.
Trade stakes for pens.
It’s my job to say something.
It’s your job, too.
Now, repeat the revised headline out loud. To the world.