The Wounded Body of Christ: Toronto Theological Colloquium on the Catholic Sexual Abuse Crisis (Part 1)

(held in Toronto, March 14-15, 2019 at the University of St. Michael’s College, Faculty of Theology, co-sponsored by The Centre for Advanced Research in Catholic Thought, King’s University College, London, ON)

As director of our King’s Centre for Catholic Thought, I, together with Profs. Mark Yenson, Andrea DiGiovanni, Carolyn Chau (as official representatives of our College), attended this event held on March 14-15, 2019 in Toronto. Here is my very cursory and random summary of the event (hurriedly written in this crazily busy time of the year).

Disclaimer: the account of the event and of the thoughts expressed by the speakers are all filtered through my own subjective lens.

Believing in a Sinful and Holy Church

Dr. Brian Flanagan from Marymount University in Virginia started the event with a public lecture. He emphasized that Sin and Sanctity are dual realities that make up the Church and we have yet to develop an adequate theology to deal with these two realities in tandem. We might need some kind of “affirmative action” in speaking about ecclesial sin because we, as a church, just lack practice in doing so. 

When we speak of “sin” in or of the church, we are speaking at four levels: (1) individual sins; (2) individual sins are, in actuality, “sins of the church” since we are the church!; (3) collective church failure; (4) social and structural sin – We should keep in mind that structures take on the results of past sinful actions. So, how do we go about developing a theology of a sinful church yet, at the same time, maintain hope in the same breath? This is a key question to answer and a goal to reach. One possible way forward: Let us recover an eschatological worldview with regard to the church, particularly, by keeping in mind that the church is a migrant community, i.e., we are still on the way to fullness. God is with us; holiness is also present in the church (particularly, as evidenced by the presence of holy people—both past and present—in this community). At the same time, the church is also deeply, deeply flawed; there is evil and sin in the church.

A very lively Q&A session followed Dr. Flanagan’s talk, one of the best I’ve seen after a theological lecture. There were, I estimate, around 100 people who came. This shows how urgent this topic is.

March 15: Theological Colloquium. (I think also 80-100 people turned out at various moments during the day)

 The full day colloquium was composed of two morning sessions: (1) Voices from Survivors: Mark Hawkins, Leona Huggins, and John Swales; (2) A Lecture by Dr. Nuala Kenny: Diagnosing Spiritual and Ecclesial Pathology Manifested in the Clergy Sexual Abuse Crisis. The afternoon also had two sessions: (1) A Lecture by Dr. Mary Ann Hinsdale: Clericalism: Roots, Relevance, and Remedies; (2) A Roundtable chaired by David Byrne involving all the speakers and lawyer Simona Jellinek to discuss the topic of the colloquium.

I will share below my own (subjective) recollections of and thoughts on the colloquium.

The Devastation of Sexual Abuse

The most powerful experience I had at the colloquium was undoubtedly the testimonies of the survivors of sexual abuse. As they recounted their particular stories, I was able to put concrete faces to the phenomenon of sexual abuse. Yes, I’ve read a lot about the abuse, but when someone shares his or her own very painful experiences in an eloquent way in front of you, you just become existentially more aware that sexual abuse is a real evil and that it wreaks destruction in the lives of the abused at so many levels. The abused have to live with these deep scars for the rest of their lives. I really am thankful to Mark, Leona, and John for sharing their stories with us.

Some concrete messages from them were indelibly etched in my mind and heart.

Leona continually emphasized that the sexual abuse is not only her story. No, IT IS OUR STORY. Let’s not consider this problem as outsiders but as insiders who are truly and really impacted by it. I was really saddened to hear that when she came out with her story, she was dismissed from her job at a Catholic school --- the victim is victimized all the more!

I was shocked to learn from Mark that although he had talked about his painful and intense experience in front of other Christian denominations, it was the first time that he was sharing his story with a Catholic audience. This is, first of all, very sad. It means Catholics have not really been keen to hear the stories of our hurting brothers and sisters. On the other hand, at least now he has talked to a Catholic audience. Hopefully, this is the first of more.

John explained that sexual abuse affects not only the survivors, but also their family and friends, the church, the laity, society as a whole and the perpetrators themselves! So true! He also reminded us hauntingly that although their stories are painful, the very fact that they are now standing in front of us, able to share their stories with us, means that they are the lucky ones … many more of the abused did not make it up until today because they could no longer go on in their painful states. John also said that if we do not walk away from the gathering scathed and scarred by what we heard, there is just something wrong with us. I want to say, John, that I really walked away from that gathering bearing deep pain in my heart for my suffering brothers and sisters …

Ecclesial Pathology Revealed by the Abuse Crisis

Sr. Dr. Nuala Kenny gave a powerful and enlightening talk on this topic. Some random recollections and impressions of mine:

·         Rooting Oneself in the Experiences of the Victims   You cannot help the healing process unless you root yourself in the experience of the victims. Nuala offered a unique perspective coming from her long experience as having dealt as a medical doctor with the victims of sexual abuse.

·         Root Causes  Besides, real healing cannot even begin if only symptoms are treated. One has to go to the root causes of a problem. In the case of sex abuse, causes involve beliefs, practices, relationships, etc.

·        Spiritual Power   Lord Acton (Catholic historian) famously said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If we apply that to the sex abuse crisis, “spiritual power corrupts spiritually.” Let me add my own take: Absolute spiritual power (the one many churchmen are led to believe that they possess) is the most insidious and damaging kind of dysfunctional conception of power because God is understood (mistakenly of course) as being on the side of the one who purportedly has spiritual power.

·         Septic Shock   One metaphor that could be used to describe the crisis is that in this present (2018-19) resurfacing of the sexual abuse crisis, we might be dealing already with a kind of “septic shock.” A septic shock begins as a localized medical problem but because it is left untreated, it becomes bigger and more powerful and it leads the different crucial body parts to shut down. Aren’t we experiencing some kind of ecclesial septic shock now?

·         Diagnosis – not Simple   For this crisis, a single, simple diagnosis has to be treated with caution (e.g., “homosexuals are the cause of this crisis.” That’s untrue and unfair). When we get sick, we have the tendency to want a short, snappy answer (treatment) to speedily solve our problems. This crisis is NOT something that can be dealt in that way. There are many causes that demand a careful, thorough diagnosis and an equally careful, thorough, long-term treatment.

END OF PART ONE. GO TO PART TWO HERE

Didymus Judas Thomas - "the Twin" and Its Profound Implications

We’ve been discussing The Gospel of Thomas in our Censored Scriptures class. What struck me this time in my re-reading of different sayings and my review of different aspects of The Gospel of Thomas is the meaning of the name "Thomas." In Aramaic, "tūmā" means "twin." John's gospel (11:16) and Thomas make reference to Thomas' being "the twin." 

(beginning of the gospel) These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which “Didymus Judas Thomas” wrote down

"Becoming" or already "being" Jesus' twin seems like a significant matter because it suggests becoming "like" Jesus, or even, a mystical union with the person of Jesus, which is, after all, the goal of the transformative way in Christianity. This is strongly echoed in saying #108 where Jesus says,

He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.“

What does that imply? Another book also found among the Nag Hammadi writings called The Book of Thomas the Contender spells out its implications in an insightful way:

• "Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself, and learn who you are, in what way you exist, and how you will come to be. Since you will be called my brother, it is not fitting that you be ignorant of yourself. …
• “…And I know that you have understood, because you had already understood that I am the knowledge of the truth. So while you accompany me, although you are uncomprehending, you have (in fact) already come to know, and you will be called 'the one who knows himself'. For he who has not known himself has known nothing, but he who has known himself has at the same time already achieved knowledge about the depth of the all. So then, you, my brother Thomas, have beheld what is obscure to men, that is, what they ignorantly stumble against."

The dominant thought in the above lines is contained in the injunction "Know yourself!"  I interpret that to mean: the image of God, the image of Christ is already embedded and embodied in our deepest core, in our authentic selves. When we go past the superficial levels of our personhood and delve into our innermost core (e.g., Teresa of Avila's Interior Castle), there we come upon the presence of God and the image of Christ. 

This teaching of Thomas then is profoundly mystical. It is furthermore echoed in the various teachings of the mystics (Christian or otherwise) and implied in various spiritual exercises such as Centering Prayer. 

It can also have a potentially active dimension. If our identity as Christians can be described as “being a twin of Christ,” that also implies that as we go out into the world, we are like “other Christs” because we are his twin-siblings. We therefore should be agents of compassion, forgiveness, inclusivity, and (distributive) justice in the world, just like our twin brother Jesus.

My Thoughts on the Recently Concluded Vatican Summit on Sexual Abuse

There have been lots of news and opinions on the web and in the media lately about the recently concluded Vatican Summit on Sexual Abuse held in Rome, Feb 21-24, 2019.

I've found a number of helpful online commentaries on the event.

Here is The Washington Post's story about the just-concluded event. It highlights Pope Francis' call for an "all-out battle" against sex abuse in the Catholic Church

Theologian William Lindsey's different links and commentary are also very useful. From his blog Bilgrimage.


Other significant matters connected with the sexual abuse crisis are the following:

Cardinal Pell was convicted of sexual abuse in Australia.

I also wrote some biblical reflections on the sexual abuse crisis published in Catholica in November 2018. I think that this is a time for Catholics to basically follow Jeremiah's injunction to the people of his time to "bow down to Babylon."

Jason Berry, a frequent Catholic "whistle-blower," points out in his article at NCR that "structural mendacity" (in short, an endemic and systemic habit of lying in the Catholic Church) lies at the heart of this sexual abuse crisis.

Paul Collins, author of Papal Power and Absolute Power, writes in this blog piece that the last 12 months have simply been Catholicism's "year from hell."

Finally, Pope Francis presents 8 points on which the church will focus to combat sexual abuse.


Now here are some of my dominant thoughts on this occasion:

1. Abuse of Power.  Clerical sexual abuse is at its core an abuse of power. The “sexual abuse” crisis is the tip of what is a more gigantic iceberg - the abuse of power and authority. When all power is concentrated in a select caste (men, celibate, ordained), the temptation to abuse this "absolute" power is just too strong for normal humans. I would go so far to say that keeping such an absolute authority structure in place without the proper checks and balances just ensures that some unscrupulous or even warped people will succumb to it. Hence the continuous toleration of this system is itself unethical! 
2. Checks and Balances.  It is better not to tolerate such a system; better even, it seems to be imperative not to make such a system even possible. How? What we need are more proper "checks and balances." Any organization needs healthy checks and balances in place so that no single person (be he a pope), no single caste, no one cabal can claim some sort of absolute and unchecked power and authority for himself or itself. For the Catholic Church, to correct the grossly unbalanced authority structure centered around the exclusive male-celibate-ordained caste, it urgently needs to set up checks and balances that counter the exclusivity of its present authority structure. 
3. Invoking God to Support an Unjust Absolute Power.  Claiming or invoking God as the source of power and authority in an absolute manner is unethical because one "uses" God in an improper way. The truth of the matter is that the claim of divine authority (e.g., as it is done in many areas of the Catholic Church) is by and large just hyperbole and exaggerated. There is a sense in which the supposed divine bestowal of authority (as claimed in Catholicism) is, at a profound level, simply untrue. For people to realize this, a careful study of the historical origins and development of the Catholic tradition is necessary. Historians and theologians, therefore, play a crucial role in this.
4. Hubris.  Jason Berry has made reference to "structural mendacity" in his article. I would add: at the heart of this sex abuse crisis, aside from the abuse of power (point #1 above) and (2) (Jason Berry's) structural lying, we must also consider a third factor - (3) a deep institutional hubris. This hubris is tied intimately with point #3 above. The deep-seated hubris is expressed in an exaggerated claim of divine authority for itself. This institutional hubris is extremely difficult to eradicate because those having power, especially absolute power in their hands, will fight tooth and nail to preserve it to the bitter end. What is worse is that some of these people are convinced that God is actually on their side! Hence, we often need an external agent, some sort of "avenging angel," if you will, in order to coerce those inordinately clinging to power to finally relinquish it. This is what I meant when I said in the Catholica article that Catholics should take to heart Jeremiah's injunction to "bow down to Babylon." The external agents in this present Catholic sexual abuse crisis can be several things. It can be the state which is actively forcing the Catholic Church to become more accountable and transparent and to come clean of its crimes. It can be the people (laity) themselves who (at least in Western countries) are leaving the church, voting with their feet in droves. It can be the young who no longer care about the Christian heritage of their culture or "just don't give a damn anymore" about such a dysfunctional church. It can be a pope who is sincerely trying to reform the system like Francis.
5. Renewal Possible?  Brian Coyne at Catholica asked, "Can this institution renew itself?" Hmmm... There is a fake Albert Einstein quote (which, nevertheless, is very insightful!) in which Einstein is supposed to have said, "A problem cannot be solved by the same consciousness that created it."  If we apply that to the Catholic Church, then we can say, the clerical system and the mentality behind it which has created this problem is simply not capable of solving it.

Now, if you think that all these reflections come from an “outsider” looking in, then I'll have to disclose that I was an active Roman Catholic priest for 10 years before my resignation which was motivated not only by personal reasons of conscience but more so by my inability to continue being a member of an exclusive hierarchical echelon of an institution that, I concluded, is flawed in ways my conscience could no longer tolerate. For me, the hierarchical church's flawed state reached the "uncondonable" level (yes, I know that everything/everyone is flawed but there are just some "flawed" states that should no longer be tolerated). I trained for the priesthood for even longer than the time I spent as an active priest. I've been educated in the center of the Catholic Church (Rome) and have seen the institution and its most intimate workings at close quarters ... I hope that gives a bit more weight to my personal opinions on this matter.

I also want to say that I still consider myself in a deep way as Catholic and that I actually love the tradition deeply and dearly, but, for my salvation and those dear to me, I try to keep a distance from the toxic aspects of the institutional expression of Roman Catholicism.

Gnosticism: Trying to Understand a Phenomenon

“Gnosticism” is one of those key words in early Christian history because it refers to a movement that one has to understand in order to get a good sense of how Christianity developed in the formative centuries of its history.

I suggest the following links (particularly to my students) as aids to accomplish this:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GepjFpVqinQ

2.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOzQnDRIp7s&feature=related

3.  https://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/tag/gnosticism/

  Link #1 is New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman's brief description of Gnosticism. Link #2 is N.T. Wright’s (another important New Testament scholar) more extensive description of the movement. Wright, I should add, seems to be more negative in his evaluation of the movement. This probably reflects his more “conservative” leanings (I know, that’s not entirely a correct description of Wright). Link#3 is the Westar Institute’s series of blogs on Gnosticism that highlights important aspects of the research conducted over several years about the movement. Westar’s research is arguably on the cutting-edge of recent research done about Gnosticism, hence, it deserves close attention.

  I also think that Gnosticism is one of those movements that could serve as a test case in order to illustrate how we (even those of us in the academy!) try to understand any phenomenon. We have to begin with generalizations which, we have to be well aware, are basically simplistic and even unfair caricatures of the phenomenon. This stage, although not imbued with scholarly rigor, is (I would say) still necessary in the quest to grasp practically anything. What we should not do is: remain in that simplistic stage. We have to go further: deepen our knowledge by more research with the result that the first basic and simplistic caricature of the phenomenon is deconstructed, transcended and/or further nuanced.

  The links I have provided above about Gnosticism might also serve to illustrate this process of starting with generalizations and going deeper into more nuanced understandings of the phenomenon (provided by the Westar Institute’s research).

Is Your God “You” Enough? …And What That Means for Evaluating the Fourth Gospel --- Deification of Humans

I started reading a book entitled Is Your God Big Enough, Close Enough, You Enough? Jesus and the Three Faces of God (St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2017) some time ago as spiritual reading-research. Author (Theologian-Pastor) Paul Smith’s approach is novel and intriguing, especially the “You Enough” part. He invites us to think of and relate with God keeping firmly in mind what he terms the “three faces of God”: God as "big" (transcendence), "close" (immanence), and even as "me myself" (radical immanence).

One major assertion of Smith is that these are the very same ways in which Jesus himself related with God. There are actually abundant references to this in the gospels. Jesus (the historical person) related with God as transcendent Father, as the One over all beings and things (e.g., Matthew 11:26 / Luke 10:21 “I bless you, Father, Lord of heaven and of earth …); Jesus also related with God as a close intimate Being (e.g., John 17:21 “May they be one as you are in me and I am in you”). But then, Jesus also spoke “as God!” (e.g., John 10:30, “The Father and I are one!”). Christians have always taken that last statement to be a reference to a special ontological divine status that Jesus had. Smith, on the other hand, seems to suggest that relating to God as “one with you,” that is, “as you” is something each and every Christian should also do, just like Jesus!

I was particularly intrigued, as mentioned, by the assertion that the God we believe in and relate with should also be “you [or ‘me’] enough.” I never heard that we have to think and relate with God as being “myself” because, in traditional Christian doctrine, that is tantamount to idolatry! However, on careful consideration, I can say that this way of thinking of and relating with God has actually many things to commend it. It leads to other significant insightful epiphanies. Among these are: it can be linked with the principle of "nonduality," the goal, we can argue, of every and all genuine spiritual paths, that is, of the whole enterprise of spirituality! It could also be taken as an effective way (the most radical and thorough one actually!) to explain the Christian Trinitarian (or any religion’s concept of) God’s immanence. A third insight I picked up is that it can positively account for the phenomenon in the Gospel of John of Jesus being clearly "divinized."

That third insight requires more comment. At some point in my life-journey, after I clearly realized that the portrait of Jesus in John is by and large non-historical and more a reflection of John and his community’s kind of (high Christological) faith in Jesus, I have to admit that John became somewhat of a disappointment for me, given my zeal to seek for the historical Jesus. There are many voices regarding the pluses and minuses of “divinizing” Jesus. We can no longer change Christian history; it is what it is. However, my interest in the historical study of Jesus has made me realize that John does present a challenge for people to see Jesus as a truly historical, flesh-and-blood first century carpenter-turned-rabbi!

So this suggestion that <the God we worship actually desires to be and should be appropriated by us as radically immanent> was a breath of fresh air. From this vantage point, John’s Gospel is more clearly revealed to be mystical and John, a mystic - someone who saw that Jesus and God are linked in a nondual way, hence, Jesus could also be called "One with the Father" (Jn 10:30).

However, why was John so unloving to his enemies in certain parts of his gospel? Here we can use the principle from Integral Theory that one can have a "mystical experience," a "waking up" experience in any stage of growth. The waking up experience is not a panacea. The person will interpret his/her mystical experience in terms of the stage of growth in which s/he finds herself. John, it can be said, was apparently still in an ethnocentric stage, even though he had a deep and significant "waking up" experience about the non-duality between YHWH and Jesus!

The logic then is: If relating with God as “Me Enough” was true for Jesus, that is also true for each one of us. We, like Jesus, can be "one with the Father (Abba-God, in his terminology). In other words, God should also be “me enough!”

“Theosis”

In order to show us that his assertion that we should relate with God as “me enough” is a bona-fide Christian practice, Smith provides us with a veritably amazing, eye-opening substantial compendium of references in Scripture and from tradition to the explicit declaration that “we are gods” or that “our goal is to be divinized.” I'm just amazed at the constant thread in the Christian tradition, particularly in the Christian East (but also some data from the West), which makes reference to the fact that one of the most important matters in Christian existence and Christian anthropology is the notion that humans are called to “become gods” - that is, deification, theosis! (Cf. pp. 183-96 of the book).

 It is impressive that there are a great many scriptural passages that explicitly mention the teaching of deification, theosis (transformation into divinity), apotheosis (deification = apo [change] + theosis = changing into divinity), and the like. This teaching has indeed been unfortunately by and large neglected in the Western Christian tradition! Now, thanks to Smith’s insights, I am convinced that theosis is a major teaching of Christianity because of overwhelming evidence in the tradition! Thanks also to the Eastern Christian tradition that has treasured this principle in a particular way!  (Cf. pp. 196-203)

Some Characteristics of the Religiosity and Spirituality of Millennials

I thought that this TED talk was particularly enlightening and good in identifying some dominant characteristics of the religiosity or spirituality of millennials.

(Some salient points from an online TED talk of Prof. Paul Robertson of New Hampshire University)

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmLbD3m6Z3w&t=0s&list=WL&index=15

No less religious-spiritual than other generations! With regard to 'beliefs and practices', millennials are no less religious-spiritual than other generations. The factor that sets them apart is that their beliefs and practices are removed from institutionalized-organized religion and are more individual, private and independent.

Functionalism - religion's value is the function that it performs in society. Society is an organism. Religion enables society as an organism to function properly. It’s like football in New England (the speaker’s local context). When Sunday comes, you know how to dress, what to do, where to go, who to root for or against, etc. 'Football', functionally speaking, plays a huge role in New England. Religion does a similar thing when considered from the point of view of functionalism.

Structuralism - our institutions, beliefs and practices form a structure so that when we are “in this structure” we know where we are located, what role we have to play in this incredibly complex universe. Religions create such a structure. You don't have to inquire about everything anymore. A structure "puts you in your place" and you know it. However, nowadays, when people (especially the youth) are not religious anymore (in a structural way), the meaning of life is not so clear anymore. People don't know their "place" in the universe anymore. The traditional religious view is that we are "imago dei." Is it any wonder that the instances of depression are more numerous today today than in ages past?

SBNR - among millennials, 72% say they're "spiritual but not religious".  In short, many still believe that there's something bigger than themselves. Millennials, although not religious, still believe that there's a "bigger meaning" to life. IN SHORT, WE ARE AS RELIGIOUS AS EVER!

Is There Really a Need to Supernaturalize Spirituality?

Yesterday, it just occurred to me that the quest for spirituality among many people nowadays is found primarily in very ordinary, quotidian experiences, in the so-called "simple joys of life," such as love, family bonding, compassion, enjoying a beautiful sunny day out in the park (as our extended family did yesterday), etc. In order to make these very ordinary experiences a means to deepen one's spirituality, one just has to—as the Buddhist tradition teaches— be mindfully aware of them, savor and cherish them, and then, seek to deepen and transcend oneself (my definition of 'spirituality'),  particularly through compassion. 

If that is the case, my burning question is: Why do we even have to "supernaturalize" or "box in" the very human quest for depth and transcendence into the category of "religion" with its supernatural categories? Is that even useful? Isn't doing that a cause for the great divorce between spirituality and everyday life? This group of questions certainly needs further reflection on my part.

I have this nagging feeling that, at least for some (many? most?), spirituality nowadays could very well remain at this very basic human level. And then, if there is indeed a God,  S/he would lead people very "organically" to whatever goal or end that S/he has in mind, without forcing an unnatural, dichotomized type of religion (between natural and supernatural).

I was thinking of these things while we were having a beautiful moment of family bonding at a park yesterday on a gorgeously beautiful spring day.

I am also reminded of what contemporary spirituality teacher Diana Butler Bass wrote in her book Grounded about the spiritual revolution that, she claims, is currently afoot. The only thing is, this spiritual revolution seems to be  grounded in very human, mundane, earthy things. Butler Bass writes,

It is surprisingly easy to join in [the spiritual revolution]: get off the elevator, feel your feet on the ground, take a walk or hike, plant a garden, clean up a watershed, act on behalf of the earth, find your roots, honor your family and home, love your neighbor as yourself, and live the Golden Rule as you engage the commons. Pay attention. Play. Sing new songs, recite poetry, write new prayers and liturgies, learn sacred texts, make friends with those of other faiths, celebrate the cycles of the seasons, and embrace ancient wisdom. Weep with those who mourn. Listen for the whisper of God everywhere. Work for justice. Know that your life is in communion with all life.

The spiritual revolution, finding God in the world, is an invitation to new birth, most especially for religion. There is no better place to start than in your synagogue, mosque, temple, or church.

Grounded, 284

(originally written 2018-05-07)

Young Catholics ... Going, Going ... Gone ...

I came upon this article at NCR on a study on disaffiliation of young Catholics in the US entitled  'Young Catholics, going, going, gone..."
Link: https://www.ncronline.org/news/parish/study-asks-why-are-young-catholics-going-going-gone

Link to publisher's (St. Mary Press) original Study: https://www.smp.org/dynamicmedia/files/d005d252a8caebcc1193f6cb755fd234/5926_Sampler.pdf


In the article, (a personal acquaintance) Elizabeth Drescher's remarks are striking:

Elizabeth Drescher, an adjunct associate professor of religious studies at Santa Clara University, spoke at one of the sessions the day after the report was presented. She has studied and written about "unaffiliation" and says those trying to understand it typically approach in one of two ways, which she saw during the evening discussion.

It usually comes down to, she told NCR, asking either what's wrong with the unaffiliated — "Are they superficial? Are they narcissistic? Did they have bad parenting?" — or asking, "Why don't they like us?"

The truth, she said, is neither. It's much more complicated. At a time when we live longer lives, and religious identity is not sealed upon us at birth and violently enforced by the authorities, and global culture has been reshaped forever by a digital revolution, traditional Western religious structures no longer fit the bill.

"We still have the fantasy that people will orient their spiritual identity around an institutional framework that worships in a particular place and time," said Drescher. "But that's not going to really solve the problem. I don't know that it's a problem to be solved to fix disaffiliation, but to what extent can churches and other organizations engage and adapt to the cultural currents of the present age?"

My take:
Traditional religious structures and institutions might still have a role as filling (bluntly speaking, nothing but) a "niche" in the task of shaping people's spiritualities and religiosities nowadays but the vast majority of people in western societies have moved on from traditional religion and do not find an exclusive and regular attendance of traditional institutions necessary anymore. Religious institutions will just have to accept that. PERIOD.

In order to stay relevant, people and institutions that have been in the Religion-Spirituality business up to now must reconfigure themselves to become truly open, non-exclusive entities that welcome any sort of seeker (even if s/he comes only  irregularly) and that offer a plan and proposal for deepening one's spirituality. They should not be overly attached to preserving traditional forms of worship.

That is usually too high a cost to pay for traditional institutions who will still try: to preserve the status quo, to keep up their self-conviction of having a direct line to God, to not change "sacred tradition," to "impose" and authoritatively "demand" how believers are to worship and live. Hence, they will increasingly be shunned and consigned to powerless irrelevancy, except for a few people still willing to be "controlled" in a traditional way.


/jkk

Religions are Like Languages

To me, religions are like languages: no language is true or false; all languages are of human origin; each language reflects and shapes the civilization that speaks it; there are things you can say in one language that you cannot say or say as well in another; and the more languages you learn, the more nuanced your understanding of life becomes. Judaism is my mother tongue, yet in matters of the spirit I strive to be multi-lingual. In the end, however, the deepest language of the soul is silence.Rabbi Rami Shapiro
Source: http://www.rabbirami.com/Accessed: 2017-01-30

What particularly struck me here is "the more languages you learn, the more nuanced your understanding of life becomes." That really hits the nail on the head! For years now I've been working on hybridity and its relation to religion and spirituality ... and to life itself. Here, Shapiro says it very eloquently: Learn as many languages you can. For me, that means in practice: try to get to know as many different worlds / religious worlds as you can ... even to the point when you can claim to a certain extent that you know these worlds somehow as an insider. You are going to be tremendously enriched by that! That has been my personal experience in my life journey so far.

Is 'Why' an Important (Ultimate) Question?

I'm reading Rami Shapiro's Perennial Wisdom for the Spiritually Independent now. In the part in which he deals with the question "Why," he provocatively asks: Is 'Why' even a relevant question?
He answers by saying that, in a profound sense, 'why' is not relevant, nay, it could even be a dangerous distraction. He uses the story of Job in the Hebrew Scriptures to comment on that. When Job demands to know the 'why' of his suffering, God seems to indicate that this question is irrelevant because life is chaotic and wild while, at the same time, also oftentimes beautiful and grand. One can just stand in front of the great mystery and live it to the full with radical acceptance. ...