I’ve had a number of face-to-face dialogues with people based on two of my previous posts, expanding our language and concept of Godde to include the feminine and my suggestion to include wisdoms for living and contributions from African, Eastern and Western spirituality. It would seem to me that moving on requires posting some thoughts on spiritual and religious dialogue. This is important for the sake of clarity as its important that we understand the various points of departure different people dialogue from. I’m putting forward some thoughts related to spiritual dialogue, in part based on what’s stewed in my noggin and in part based on my experience dialoguing with people of faith over the years.
I believe one must classify oneself as well as who we are speaking to in terms of the dynamic of the conversation (I know we’re all allergic to being boxed and categorised but stick with me for the sake of the dialogue):
-
Source: The focus of whichever spiritual or religious group or movement in question. The source may be a natural force, a philosophy or ideal, or even a spiritual being revealing itself to people in history.
-
Ambassadorial Representative: An individual, text, practice or even tradition serving as a representative of one or other spiritual source and who is recognised as serving in such capacity. An ambassadorial representative is chosen by a source and thereby empowered to serve as one.
-
End User: An individual who participates in a spiritual or religious group or movement. They are not considered a seeker because they’ve found something meaningful for themselves but may not currently or ever serve as a valid ambassadorial representative.
-
Seeker: One who does not necessarily hold to a given or defined spiritual or religious group or movement and who may be characterised as one searching for meaning or truth or spirituality.
In light of this there are a number of different kinds of dialogue involving various dynamics:
-
Source to Source
-
Source to Ambassador
-
Source to End User
-
Source to Seeker
-
Ambassador to Ambassador
-
End User to End User
-
Seeker to Seeker
-
Seeker to End User
-
Seeker to Ambassador
-
End User to Ambassador
The characteristics of the different conversations vary considerably.
I’m not one for romantic notions related to religion and spirituality so I will set them aside and ask you to bear with me when I say that, “People live disconnected from themselves, each other, creation, and Godde.” Some people experience a connection with some form of Godde or other earlier in life than others, but for the most part people enter the conversation as seekers relatively late in life. They may meet other seekers, end users, and occassionally a knowledgeable and/or empowered ambassador. Here is where it becomes important to understand what kind of dialogue is taking place.
The above diagram brings the three human participants of the dialogue together. As many don’t start their spiritual lives connected with some source (philosophy, natural experience, spiritual being) I will pursue this idea starting with the seeker in mind.
Every individual is capable of experiencing whatever Source they’re looking into. For the sake of simplicity I’m going to use “Source” but here I’m using it as a placeholder concept for forces, philosophies and spiritual beings. I’m not implying for one second that there is a difference in value or potential connection between people and Godde as I believe that there is free access to Godde. I’m recognizing that many people simply don’t, for whatever reason, connect with one kind of Source or another. When people enter into dialogue, seeking to encounter a Source, their first experience and often their continue experience is a “mediated encounter”.
In the best case sceneario people find or experience the Source through a capable and significant ambassador who is able to sufficiently mediate the experience so that the seeker meaningfully experientially encounters the source. This is not to say that people cannot experience Godde directly at first, it’s just a recognition that people are often introduced to and schooled into the practice of connected with various Sources.
For many, however, the picture isn’t as clear and so there are various kinds of dialogue that happen along the way:
Many individuals seeking a personal spiritual experience end up dialoguing with end users, people who experience the Source through whatever ambassadorial mediation takes place. This experience can, however, become murkier when the seeker dialogues with other seekers, often resulting in a theological version of the blind leading the blind.
In the world we live in the various faiths and spiritualities are coming to share the same space. This means that the seeker is often found in the space between the various religions and spiritualities. Here it becomes helpful to realise that the end user, when encountering other faiths and spiritualities, usually ends up adopting what “works for them.”
Seekers are more often than caught between various faith positions, which equally serve people in terms of perceived experiential value. If the sole measure of truth or value is “what works for me” then the seeker will move toward becoming an end user but may not move on to becoming an ambassadorial representative of a position other than the positionless position. To grow toward maturity in any given faith or spirituality a seeker must move toward being an end user and then grow toward being an ambassadorial representative.
My post suggesting the inclusion of African, Eastern and Western contributions or wisdoms for living and ways of expressing spirituality and worship relates to the mediation of spiritual experience. Similarly, SoundandSilence’s series of posts on the Shamanic similarly explores the relationship between faith and mediation. Often religious and spiritual traditions are limited in terms of the range of experiences through which their Source is mediated by the tradition, which also serves as ambassadorial representative. This can happen when the vehicles of transmission and remembrance used by the tradition become so pre-packaged and intertwined with the Source that they become synonymous, and hence to suggest a change of expression gets viewed as akin to a change of the Source. No doubt, as DanWilt points out end users and seekers as well as ambassadors shifting vehicles of communication may often change their and others faith and spiritual positions along with the vehicles of expression.
I hold to the view that remaining conscious of our Sources, the divine side or contributors while understanding who we’re speaking to and who we’re speaking as will go a long way to overcoming some of the difficulties arising from interfaith dialogue.
Filed under: christianity, convergence, emerging church, interfaith dialogue, spirituality
Tim
Interesting observations.
I’m amazed how most individuals are great evangilists of their own point of view. Even the seeker, who by definition should be seeking, will evangilize that the true way is to be a “seeker”. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Andrew,
Quite true. That’s the nature of being convinced that you know a truth, you believe it and promote it.
There is a difference between “overt” and “subtle” forms of evangelism. Many people object to Christians openly making statements about Jesus being the only way to Godde but the Buddhist showing someone the value of meditation is exactly the same thing, albeit presented differently. The former is often considered annoying and inappropriate while those doing the latter kind of evangelism often argue that they’re not proseletysing in any way.
Whould you say that there is a difference between truth and God?
The way I see it, is that truth is different for everyone and so we try in, partly,vain to cast our views on others.(as I’m doing now). but God is in everyone’s truthfulness, so we need to loose our “self” to find God beyond our own understanding. ie: see God through others.
Tim.
Well articulated me thinks – i found the diagrams particularly useful. the concept of “source” seems particularly provocative element in the inter-faith dialogue equation.
for me, the contrast between an evangelical christian telling someone that Jesus is the only way to Godde and a buddhist showing someone the value of meditation, rests on their underlying assumptions. the buddha taught his followers to see every human being as the buddha. hence, the use of the greeting, “namaste”, which is commonly used out east , reflects this attitude and literally means “i bow to you”.
conversely, the evangelical christian typically tells people that unless they accept Christ as their own personal saviour, they will remain unacceptable to Godde spend an eternity without Godde.
so whether we are dealing with a redneck from the bible belt proclaiming “turn or burn sinner!”, or a more sophisticated post-modern media-savvy evangelical believer proclaiming their message, the message ultimately remains the same.
if dialogue between two individuals doesn’t result in at least some change in both parties, only a monologue took place.
Tim, a well framed presentation of the interfaith dynamic.
I was wondering about the specific “doctrine” of the priesthood of believers. Do you not think this is a radical shift towards the divine making home in the midst of humanity?
Also it would seem to challenge the suggestions of institutionalism contained in the “ambassadorial” role, where the ambassador holds the power/key to the source.
Are you suggesting that end uses become more ambassadorial, or that they become more seeker?
[BTW I can't see the diagrams]
Tim. apologies if i’m coming across as combative at present. it’s not just for the sake of it – i’m working things thru the system but maybe doing that partly in the blogsphere is unfair on the rest of you. your application of “Godde for a year” and your thoughtful posts here offer real value. i look forward to spending some time with you when i’m next in the kaap as Nic speaks highly of u and i believe he is a supreme judge of character. till later, keep it going. Russ.
Andrew,
I think that “personal truth” varies and as such Godde’s truth as personal differs from individual people’s personal truth.
As ‘truth’ is a matter of knowing and I don’t believe Godde is lacking in the knowing department Godde’s personal truth is also Truth.
Truth and truth, what a suitable conundrum…
Hi Russ,
I look foward to meeting you too. Both Nic and Andrew speak highly of you. I’ve really been enjoying the online interaction, though it is quite limited. Maybe one day the bunch of us could dialogue via internet and post those dialogues
I haven’t experienced you as combative but rather see you as passionate in your exploration and convictions.
I reckom the Buddhist and the Christian are both evangelising people into their truth (to continue the example) and both consider their tradition (in the healthiest sense of the word/concept) to rightly point people toward salvation. Both are equally strong in their views and both require others to ‘believe’ and ‘praxis’ rightly in order ‘to be saved.’
I’ve dialogued with many religious people – from Buddhists to Mormons to Sahaja Yogis to occultists – and found that real dialogue requires a lot of work, which many people simply aren’t willing to do. It would appear that people from all traditions want to pontificate (including myself).
Unfortunately the interfaith dialogues I’ve been a part of superficially find ‘common ground’ in the view that Godde is essentially vague, impersonal and unknowable and thereby erases everyone’s truth.
In grappling with this issue I’m trying to fully explore “the problem of Godde”.
Hi Nic,
I’ll convert the pics to JPG’s later today and see if that solves the problem for you and if so make that my habit form now on.
I’m here exploring the seeker trying to connect with a source and noting that along the way they will find many different sources, along with the ambassadorial representatives and end users relating to that source.
I refer to the institutional element as it is important for religion is as much public and historical as it is personal and private. The scope of what serves as an ‘ambassador’ can be anything from a meditation technique through to a scripture through to a present person. Am I missing you here? I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘challenge’?
When an end user gets caught between two faith positions they often move toward the ’seeker’ category (in the sense of these present definitions) before moving on toward another end user position (even if it is the positionless position it is still a position).
I do believe that the creative intent of Godde included relational intimacy with humanity, which for various reasons hasn’t quite worked out as well as it could’ve. In and through the work of Christ people have free access to Godde in and through Christ. In that sense the presence and power and intimacy of Godde evidenced in OT prophets and figures is available to all.
I was trying to say that unmediated intimacy potential was a challenge to the “ambasadorial”. The ambassadorial implies, for me, a mediating force, even a pompous one, which as mystically inclined and in favour of unmediation, is not that desirable.
We can take this one up face to face.
A note on the seeker: seekers can avoid becoming finders because of the responsibility implied in finding.
Tim, ja i look forward to some passionate & playful conversations when i’m over next. between you, Nic, Andy and myself – and whoever cares to join – i’m sure we’ll put some flesh on the virtual bones. i’m particularly taken with the notion of non-duality and the sayings of Christ, as recorded in the gospel of thomas. for me, they have the ring of authority, as well as the depth & paradox of meaning that can keep one chewing on them for aeons.
regarding inter-faith dialogue, i find it interesting that the mystics of the three monotheistic religions communicate far more easily, relative to their more exoteric brethren, who – myself included – too easily start climbing the signpost rather than travel the path.
your explorations will no doubt uncover some of the reasons for this. the parable of the 10 blind people arguing over what the elephant “is” comes to mind.
And once you find out what an elephant “is” ,you then realize that there is only one way to eat it!!
lol – now that’s a wicked sense of humour feotu !
If Godde is vague, impersonal and essentially unknowable then yes the parable of the 10 blind people is applicable (I won’t comment on the privileged position of the king – that’s for another day).
If Godd is distinct, personal and self-revealing (as much evidence points to but we must speak of Godde in the plural as there are many self-proclaimed high gods as their are self-proclaimed messiahs) then I don’t think that’s a suitable parable.
Which brings me to another thought and perhaps another blog post…
Hi Nic,
I’m using the term “ambassador” as referencial, in a technical sense, without pejurative connotations… but I hear you.
In the senes I mean it the ambassadorial always exists because it is everything from a reference to a text to a method to a tradition to a person to a work of art, etc. There will always be people who don’t connect with a Source who upon hearing (in various ways) about it want to do so.
Yes, I definately agree that seekers may avoid finding. I’ve heard over a dozen people admit that they don’t want to enter into personal spiritual experience because of the ‘cost’ associated therewith. They’re people who didn’t want their lives to change.