Thoughts on Jewish-Christian Relations: Post-Symposium Reflections (February 2025)

 -Julius-Kei Kato, PhD

I participated in a symposium on Christology and its state vis-a-vis Jewish-Christian relations 60 years after Nostra Aetate.  It was held in Rome, Feb. 24~26, 2025, at the Rome campus of the Australian Catholic University. Symposium program HERE.

This is a quick 'taking stock' of the wisdom-gems that I received and took away from this very insightful symposium, in fellowship with other scholars and practitioners. Below, I develop one big "wisdom-gem" and briefly mention three other themes. Each deserves a more extended reflection but, for the moment, these are my reflections on matters that struck me with force before they fade away with the passage of time. 

[Wisdom-Gem #1] Exegesis will not save us. Ethics will.  

In an insightful remark during her talk on the present-day state of Christian-Jewish relationships in the wake of Nostra Aetate, prominent Jewish New Testament scholar Amy-Jill Levine suggested that--in these words (as far as I can remember them)--"Exegesis will not save us. Ethics will." 

This struck a chord in me. Many of us in the gathering were biblical scholars with training mainly in exegesis and historical-critical methods. (I moved beyond exegesis in my PhD studies and present work but I still consider myself very much a biblical scholar who engages in exegesis as one of my main tasks up to today!) These words then pertained to us directly, reminding us that we may very well do an excellent job of exegesis with regard to particular problematic passages in the New Testament that seem to be anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic, and supersessionist. At the end of the day, however (as AJ Levine reminded us), there is a limit to what we can do as exegetes. No amount of exegesis will solve the problem of the anti-Semitism and supersessionism of certain parts of the New Testament. To move towards some kind of solution, we will have to enter another area --- the area of ethics. 

Ethics

By "ethics," I understand the following: How we interpret texts and their messages (for our purposes here, the New Testament) in a way that clarifies not only what they meant in the past (which is, strictly speaking, the task of exegesis), but also and most importantly, what the ethical repercussions of the text's message has had in history and what consequences they continue to have in our present day.

Hermeneutics

Let me emphasize here then that critical hermeneutics ("interpretation") plays a crucial role in the enterprise of clarifying the meaning and ethical import of texts as they pertain to and impact Christian-Jewish relationships. The full formula should therefore be: "Exegesis will not save us. If there's any chance of detoxifying and redeeming Christian supersessionist and anti-Semitic texts, we should intentionally employ critical hermeneutical-ethical lenses to them."

The next burning question then is: What are the "nuts and bolts" of these so-called "hermeneutical-ethical lenses" that we need (aside from traditional historical-critical exegesis) to detoxify and redeem anti-Semitic and supersessionist passages in the New Testament? This is not the space for me to elaborate on them. Just very briefly then, let me put it in the following way:

A religion is basically a worldview -- it is the "world" in which believers and adherents dwell. This religious world influences in turn how they view the world around them, with consequences for how they act toward others in their locations. It goes without saying that religious texts (like the texts of the New Testament) come from these religious worldviews.

Texts should therefore be subjected to a critical analysis of what kind of worldview they stem from. That analysis should be followed by taking stock of what particular worldview(s) the text produces. The two are often directly related although the world that a religious text gives birth to can be different from the worldview of the text depending on how this text is interpreted; hence, the importance of an ethical and compassionate way of interpretation!

Some Criteria and Tools that May Aid Us

Concretely speaking, in my experience thus far, I have found that some concrete criteria and tools to analyze worldviews behind texts could effectively explain why some religious worldviews are more "tribal" and harmful to the "Other" (outgroups), while some others are more open and compassionate. Some of these criteria and tools I've used through the years include: (1) Various developmental theories and categories (e.g., "stages of faith") applied to religious worldviews; (2) Principles of a Global Ethic; (3) Compassion as the core hermeneutical principle (e.g. historian of religion Karen Armstrong's Charter for Compassion) (4) "Conventional or Transconventional" Religion-Spirituality (e.g. spiritual teacher and psychiatrist Roger Walsh's proposal), among others. 

I have written on these categories and tools elsewhere without however explicitly applying them to problematic passages for Jewish-Christian relations in the New Testament. I've resolved to apply them more explicitly in my future work. (Confer my blogpost titled "Worldviews and Religions: The Role of Religions-as-Worldviews in Building a Global Community of Justice & Peace" found in this following LINK in my blog.)

I have also applied some of the categories above to analyze the various problematic aspects of the Gospel of John in the following article titled "Confronting John’s Shadows while Basking in Its Lights: A Theological Attempt to Deal with the Fourth Gospel’s Ambivalence" (Kato 2023). It is an attempt to grapple theologically and ethically with the different problematic aspects of John's gospel. It can be found at this LINK. 

In my 2023 monograph Reading the Bible in a Secular Age: The New Testament as Spiritual Ancestry, I have a chapter dedicated to presenting Jesus. I try my best to avoid wrong caricatures of "Judaism" vis-a-vis the life, ministry, and teaching of Christianity's central figure. I hope that I have succeeded to a certain extent in that endeavor. You can read that chapter at this LINK. 

What Can a Theology-Without-Walls Contribute to a Secular Age?

By Julius-Kei Kato, PhD 

These are some random thoughts I have on this topic which I will present at this year’s AAR session of the movement Theology Without Walls (November 24, 2024, San Diego, CA)

[00] Introduction: From a ‘Religion of God’ to a ‘Religion of Life’

The urgency of theology being in dialogue with secularity is obvious: Many of us are located right smack in the middle of very secularized people and contexts. Hence, I’m asking: What can ‘Theology Without Walls’ (henceforward, TWW) contribute to this conversation? 

Above everything else though, let me point out that there is this contemporary phenomenon in which the kind of “religion” (Note that I take “religion” here to mean “a passionate devotion to something”) … so, the kind of ‘religion’ unconsciously professed by a great many people in secular contexts, it seems, has undergone a seismic shift in the recent past. It has effectively shifted from a religion centered on ‘God’ (theos), to a religion centered on “life” (I mean the Greek: zoé), not just “life in general,” but rather: life in the here and now. Hence, the operative religion of many people we know (perhaps even the religion we ourselves follow without being fully aware of it) can be called a “religion of life.” And this is often true even if people can still identify with a traditional kind of religious faith.

To elaborate, the prevalent situation in which many of us are located, particularly in the West (and in Westernized contexts around the world), is one in which the primary “devotion” (to use a traditional, religious-sounding term) or—to use a more neutral term—the primary “concern” of many … perhaps most(?) people is no longer directed to a theistic notion of God (still the operative notion of God in many churches). No, the utmost concern, (I like to use) “devotion” of many people has shifted instead to ‘life itself in the here and now’. Back to my basic question: Can TWW explore and suggest alternative meaning systems/new paths of religion or spirituality that are more relevant in our contexts today as conventional ideas of God and religion, hitherto prevalent in the West, are increasingly fading away? That would be an elaborate version of my burning question.

This presentation is something like my two-cents worth on this topic.

[01] What is Theology “Without Walls”? (How I understand it)

I guess it’s good to start with TWW’s opposite—Theology WITH walls (TWiW) aka, traditional theology. Theology WITH Walls, we can say, is a particular religious community’s “inner discourse” regarding—what the community considers—ultimate matters. In the Western religious tradition, “the Ultimate” has commonly taken the form of theos or “God.” Since it is “insider talk,” the community itself, namely, its own authority structure, is the ultimate arbiter of the discourse. Outsiders should not interfere. We can say that this way of doing theology has serious limitations because it is a product of in-breeding, in a certain sense. It can listen and try to learn from others. And sometimes, it does. But the fundamental stance it takes (especially for well-established religious communities) is that our community’s “discourse about God” is the “the best” … at least for us.

TWW is (or at least aims to be) the antithesis of that. It proposes that theology CANNOT and SHOULD NOT remain an “insider discourse.” It proposes to break down the walls of the enterprise of theology. Theology, it proposes, in the sense of “Discourse regarding Ultimacy” is common to humanity because seeking ultimacy or transcendence is a deeply hardwired human pursuit.

In this endeavor, theology without walls can consider secularism as an ally. How so? (The following is from philosopher John Caputo’s explanation) “Secular” refers to a public order where ideally there is no one who has hegemony or control over others. Hence, it includes the separation of church and state so that each would not interfere with the affairs of the other. Instead, there is the existence and acceptance of a plurality of opinions (including religious ones). The secular order is envisioned then to be an open-ended, polymorphic, polyvocal order which includes diverse voices saying all sorts of things. In principle, anyone in a secular society has the right to ask any question. (This is from an online talk of Caputo at The Wheatly Institution)

In such a context, if there be any “discourse about ultimacy/transcendence” (aka, theology), it necessarily has to be “without walls,” that is, an “open-ended, polymorphic, polyvocal order of diverse sorts of people saying all sorts of things. In a secular context, one cannot take refuge in “insider’s discourses” about ultimacy or about God.

Today’s "Spirituality Revolution" Happening in Our Midst: Its Relevance and Main Characteristics

 

By: Julius-Kei Kato, SSL, PhD

These thoughts are the result of my reading of Dr. David Tacey's The Spirituality Revolution [henceforth, SR]: The Rise of Contemporary Spirituality (2004), as well as my own various reflections, research, and experiences related to this theme. [jkk] 

[1] There is an Ongoing "Spirituality Revolution" Today |  Many studies and surveys show that there is a high level of interest in—what we can call—"spirituality" today among people from all backgrounds and persuasions, surprisingly even those who are not interested in traditional and organized “religion.” Of course, the term "spirituality” itself is difficult to define in a simple way because there are many ways to understand it. I usually explain spirituality as the quest to live not superficially but more deeply, not egoistically but for something bigger than one’s selfish interests. Hence, spirituality—as I understand it—is a quest for “deeper and bigger”; in fancier terms, it is a quest for “depth and transcendence.” Spirituality (or cultivating your own spirituality) is deeply and fundamentally a human trait (or a human activity). It is the core of all religion (SR, p. 87) but, as is common today, it does not have to be linked with organized religion.

In other words, one can be both spiritual and religious, or one can even be—as the common buzzword today states—“spiritual but not religious.” To share my own self-perception, I describe myself as “spiritual but not-and yet religious” to express both my deep ambiguity toward the dark sides of organized religion yet, at the same time, also my deep recognition of religion’s ongoing importance for myself and many others in today’s world.

Spirituality is not per se an enemy of religious faith. But it will definitely make a believer seek the core and the origin of one’s religious faith. And in that process, the spiritual seeker-believer discovers both the wholesome and the dark sides of religion. This is the reason why “spiritual” people are sometimes viewed as “rebels.” They try to call out and reform the religious traditions to purify themselves and return to their authentic roots.

Australian professor of humanities Dr. David Tacey, who observes trends in spirituality in contemporary society, is convinced that we are actually in the midst of—what he calls—a "spirituality revolution" today. Being myself a professor who teaches religion & spirituality courses to young adults at a liberal arts university, I strongly agree with him. I have experienced firsthand this spiritual thirst among many young people at the university. This seems ironical because a lot of these same young people do not affiliate with institutional forms of religion.

Tacey’s central premise in the abovementioned book (The Spirituality Revolution [SR]) is this: “We are entering a new aeon, governed by a new ethos and a new spirit. The secular period has peaked and is drawing to a close. The dry, arid wasteland of the modern era is being eclipsed by something new, and it is still too early to determine exactly what it is” (SR p. 16, numbers in parentheses refer to pages in Tacey’s book).

[2] A "Post-Secular" Age |  Linked with this contemporary heightened interest in spirituality is the fact that we are living at present in--what some call--a "post-secular" age. What that means is, many people (particularly, youth and young adults) have moved beyond a purely secular worldview (one that is fundamentally materialistic and dogmatically scientific but unable to provide people with a deeper meaning for their human existence) into something else that (happily, I think!) is open to and includes spiritual and transcendent realities. In other words, being a dogmatic materialist (“I only believe what I can see and touch”) is no longer cool. Being “spiritual” is actually “in” to such an extent that I have seen a study that says, saying you are “spiritual” makes you more attractive as a date.

Tacey bases his claim of a spiritual revolution mainly from his experience of observing firsthand the spirituality movement "from below,” that is, the spiritual ferment happening among the youth who take his courses at the university setting. In his book, he mentions a famous line from a poem titled "Dover Beach" (by British poet Matthew Arnold) which proclaimed (in 1867!) that the "sea of faith" (referring to some parts of Western Europe at the time) has come to be at a low tide. Going back to our present day, in light of the heightened interest in spirituality today, Tacey disagrees with the line from Dover’s Beach. He actually thinks we are once again at "high tide" about matters of the spirit, hence, his claim of a present-day "spirituality revolution" (SR, p. 21). And I definitely agree with him.

[3] The Spirituality Revolution as Evidenced in the Contemporary Quest for Spirituality |  To describe this current spirituality revolution more concretely, let's try to identify its main characteristics. We can observe some important common trends from the experiences of many people today who are seeking and questing for a more meaningful spirituality. These trends seem to form a set of principles and practices that can give a deeper meaning to life in the midst of the many challenges of our contemporary age.

Let me start by enumerating some common themes that—we can say—are characteristic of the common quest for spirituality particularly in the West (and in Westernized contexts) today. These themes all express a quest for—what I often express as—"inner depth & self-transcendence.” However, that quest includes the following prominent features that relate to: the body, the feminine, gender equality, nature & ecology, the desire for a greater wholeness, the struggle for social justice and peace, among others. To organize these various themes more systematically, I'll group them into three big areas that I will label as follows: (1) creation spirituality (SR, p. 84); (2) spirituality as a quest for greater wholeness, depth, and transcendence (SR, pp. 80-91); (3) the struggle to attain greater social justice & peace, especially for the marginalized and oppressed (SR, pp. 66, 147-48).

Spiritual Quests & Optimal Living: How They're Intimately Connected

 

Ordinary Human Life as a Spiritual Quest

I've recently renamed my public Facebook page to "JK Kato-Spiritual Quests & Optimal Living." (LINK) Formerly it had a long and clunky name: "JK Kato-Studying the Human Quest for Depth & Transcendence."

Why? The new name reflects my growing conviction that human life--every aspect of it--is a spiritual quest, a quest which is nevertheless rooted in ordinary life with all its ups and downs. That means: Don't be afraid of "spiritual quests"! A spiritual quest is not an elite activity that is beyond the reach of ordinary people like you and me.

Rather, simply put, the spiritual quest actually consists in trying to live an "Optimal Life" (a key expression for me now), which is nothing else than trying our darned best to be the best versions of ourselves in the different situations where we find ourselves. 

In Japanese, one of the most common expressions for encouraging others is the expression "Gambare!" (頑張れ). That basically means "Do your best!" It also includes though this nuance: (Do you best) 'under all the different circumstances where you find yourself'. For me, "optimal living" then, simply put, basically means --what in Japanese is-- gambaru ("doing your best"). Thus, the spirituality of optimal living is simply a Gambaru Seishin (頑張る精神), a spirituality of doing one's best in every given moment.

Another way of putting it would be the following:  Optimal living is "showing up as the best version of yourself" in every moment of life. That is life-coach, optimal living philosopher Brian Johnson's dynamic rendering. To that let me add the important word: "mindfully." Therefore, my fuller description of optimal living is: While being mindful of where we are and what we face, we try to be the best version of ourself in every moment of life.

Now an important caveat: Optimal living is NOT perfectionism. The former is healthy because it is firmly based on reality and takes account of our different limitations; the latter can be unwholesome because it tends to have unrealistic demands. 

So, What's "Spiritual" about All This?

If "optimal living" (that is, "mindfully showing up as your best self at every given moment") is practically what a "spiritual quest" is all about, you may be asking: What is "spiritual" about that? Isn't that just an ordinary "human" goal and endeavor?

Yes, that's a very important question and here are my thoughts about it.

The great spiritual traditions of the world have always reminded us that each one of us, as well as all beings and all things in the whole universe, are part of a BIGGER REALITY. The spiritual traditions have called that Greater Reality by different names: "God", "the Spirit", "Nirvana", "Interconnectedness" (Emptiness-Nothingness), "Brahman", etc. That concept has even been given names in the popular culture of our secular age such as: "the Universe", "the Force", "Destiny", etc. 

What that means is, according to the great spiritual traditions of the world, each one of us is living out our daily existence within a wider and bigger dimension which is not normally perceivable by our ordinary senses. In other words, this bigger dimension is non-material; hence, it is "spiritual". Many spiritual traditions describe this bigger dimension as having a personal character. It is therefore thought of as a gracious, and compassionate personal Being (as in Christianity's assertion, "God is Love").

Remember then: According to the spiritual traditions, your actions, your thoughts, your very existence ... those are not only your own. You and whatever you do -- all of that is closely interconnected to everyone and everything else. You're playing out your life and your particular role on a bigger stage, and each and every action of yours, whether good, bad, or neutral, has consequences not only for yourself but for others and the whole universe. 

All of that leads to this conclusion: To live fully as a human being, it's certainly better to be attuned to this bigger, wider, and deeper, non-material/spiritual dimension of reality. Without it, life will be shallow and lacking in meaning. This is why it is often said, "You've got to live for something bigger than yourself."

That, in short, is why we are all spiritual beings. That's why we have to undertake the spiritual quest. That's why it's good to be "spiritually literate." It's in our nature as humans to be aware of and to actually "touch" in some way this spiritual (non-material, bigger, and deeper) dimension of life.
Furthermore, you don't have to attach "God" to this spiritual quest, although many of us still do so and that's fine as well. What is necessary though is to be aware and mindful of this "greater dimension." Whether you call it by a name (like "God") is secondary.

In our secular age, many people prefer to stress the mystery-dimension of this bigger realm and not explicity name it. This is a modern development that is somehow different from the practice of our past ancestors who liked to name this greater reality with titles such as "God", "YHWH", "Jesus", "Allah", etc. 

The Spiritual Quest is Primarily about This Life Here and Now

For all the complaints that religious believers have about our present "secularized" age, I think that the secular age has a valuable contribution to our sense of spirituality. Nowadays, it is emphasized that things are primarily played out in this life, in the here and now. Therefore, we have to give this life our all, without being overly concerned with the afterlife, contrary to what many traditional religions have advocated in the past. To give a concrete example, this means  that we cannot resign ourselves and sort of just passively accept the evils and oppressions of this time because we hope for a better existence in the afterlife. That is an instance of religion being an "opium of the people," to use Karl Marx's famous critique of religion. Rather, we struggle against and resist the many wrongs in this world; we try to live our lives now to the full, precisely as the best way of responding to the precious gift of life.

It is clear that we cannot conclusively prove that there is an afterlife or even that there is a non-material-spiritual dimension. Nevertheless, living our one life well and to the full, as the best version of ourselves, will bring us to--what Abraham Maslow pointed out is--the highest level of fulfillment: Self-Transcendence, a fully alive level of existence in which someone trusts that there is a greater reality, lives for a bigger cause and, at the same time, is authentically happy and fulfilled. Almost as an afterthought, if there be indeed an afterlife, living our life now to the full will be our best preparation for it!

If we somehow experience some self-transcendence, we will actually touch everyone and everything else in a deep and moving way. This has been shown by the spiritual mystics of all spiritual traditions. We will also somehow get a glimpse of and touch in some way the Greater Dimension itself or, if you will, the Greater Being, the one that some spiritual traditions have called "God", "the Spirit", "the Force", "the Universe". 

---

The Rising “Religion of Life” Today: Philosopher of Religion Don Cupitt's Thoughts on This and My Critical Reactions to It

 

This blogpost is closely based on a lecture given by David Warden of the “Dorset Humanists” on "The Religion of Life,” (DCRL link below), a way of life advocated by British Philosopher of Religion Don Cupitt

SOURCE:  Don Cupitt and the religion of life – a lecture by David Warden

link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK7pWPVV7LA (Hereafter referred to as DCRL)

Note well also the following works as further references:

·         Philosopher-Kings: http://www.philosopherkings.co.uk/doncupitt.html

·         The Fountain: https://iai.tv/video/the-fountain

·         Cupitt, Don. Turns of Phrase: Radical Theology from A to Z. London: SCM Press, 2011. (Hereafter referred to as TP)

·         See also the overview of Don Cupitt’s thinking at: http://www.philosopherkings.co.uk/doncupitt.html

*****

Don Cupitt and Religion 

Don Cupitt is a British philosopher of religion and theologian who has reflected deeply and written extensively on the state of religion in the contemporary Western world.

Cupitt thinks that “God” (the image of God) as traditionally conceived of in the West (namely, a supernatural Being who is all-powerful and controls all things) is fundamentally a myth (not an objective reality). However, “religion” which upheld this idea of God in the West for a long time, can still be deeply meaningful. He has called this position “non-realism.”

Besides, Cupitt also teaches that this life is (apparently) all that there is and that there is nothing else beyond this present existence. Hence, our main task is to live this life to the fullest and make the most of our limited existence here on earth.

Here in the West, religion is usually thought of as a belief in and worship of a supernatural God. Let us not forget though that there are other meanings of the word “religion.” For example, in everyday usage, “religion” is sometimes meant as an “all-consuming passion” (such as baseball or football, hence, expressions such as “Hockey is my religion”).

In parts of the East though, religion has often been understood primarily as a practice or applied philosophy that can deliver enlightenment and bliss to those who undertake its practice. In this understanding of religion, “believing” is not too important. Rather, the emphasis is on praxis: practicing and living according to teachings that are immensely practical and are geared to achieving a greater wholeness in the practioner and in the world. These teachings can actually be called—in the words of spirituality teacher Roger Walsh—"psycho-spiritual technologies” that can and do deliver bliss, happiness, and well-being. Spiritual-wisdom traditions such as Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism (among others) best exemplify this type of religion. There is a tendency in the West though to look down upon such non-theistic forms of religion and consider them as “mere philosophies” (mere human thinking) and not true religions, which are thought of as being directly revealed by the Divine Being. Needless to say, I do not agree with this condescending attitude toward Eastern spiritual-wisdom traditions.

It is fair to say that Westerners are generally not used to an understanding of religion that puts great import on practice (praxis) instead of believing. As mentioned above, it is usually thought that monotheistic religions are the only “authentic” forms of religions. Because of the prevalence of this idea in the West, there is still a strong tendency to equate religion with supernatural beliefs or with believing in things that one cannot really prove but have to be, as the popular formula goes, “taken on faith.” Many of these matters that are to be taken on faith have mythological features in common with other ancient myths. Many Westerners find it hard to see that a largely “beliefless” kind of religion that puts the emphasis instead on praxis can be interesting, let alone legitimate (cf. Cupitt, 2000: Philosophy’s Own Religion).

[jkk annotation]

In line with Cupitt, I propose that even in the West, it is high time to understand and practice religion in the abovementioned manner frequently associated with Eastern spiritual-wisdom traditions (Eastern religions). I say this because of my work with young adults at the university, many of whom identify themselves as MRB (‘Multiple Religious Belonging’ people), SBNR (Spiritual but not Religious), Dones (We’re “done” with religion), and/or Nones (We have “no” religion). This may very well be the reason why Buddhism, a tradition that has no explicit belief in God, is so popular in the West today.

Psychiatrist and spirituality teacher Roger Walsh (UC-Irvine) has called an understanding and practice of religion (that emphasizes the practical dimension) “transconventional religion.” This is contrasted with “conventional” Western religion which puts the emphasis on believing on faith (the creed, the Bible, biblical principles, etc.) and linking one’s eternal salvation with such an act of believing.

[end of jkk annotation]

Worldviews and Religions: The Role of Religions-as-Worldviews in Building a Global Community of Justice & Peace

image from gracechurch.org

By: Julius-Kei Kato, PhD

I acknowledge my debt to the many thinker-teachers who have taught me precious lessons about the topics I write about here, particularly, Ken Wilber and his iteration of “the Integral Theory.” A full list of references for sources of the content here as well as for further study is found at the end of the article.

Part I

Worldviews and Religion-as-a-Worldview – Attaining a Worldview that Can Help Build a Just and Peaceful World

This essay is principally about the importance of worldviews, especially religious and spiritual worldviews. It describes what worldviews are and how they can impede or contribute to the building of a world in which true justice and peace are present.

[1] Building a Just and Peaceful World |  One of the most important keys to building a just and peaceful world today is to bring people (as individuals and as groups) to truly want to be “global citizens,” in other words, willing participants of—what we shall call here—a “global community.” Let us define “global community” along the lines of the concept of “global citizenship” as a movement of many people throughout our increasingly globalized and interconnected world who value the well-being of others: one’s own insider group of course but, equally, also those outside one’s groups of affiliation (extending this concern to the whole world even). A particularly urgent matter at this juncture in history is for members of this global community to become deeply aware of the precarious ecological situation of our common earth-home and act to improve the situation.

Global citizens (the members of this envisioned global community) commit themselves, first, to refrain from things that harm others and, second, to act in order to realize better the vision of a more peaceful and just world not only for themselves and their in-group members (aka, one’s “tribe”) but for everyone in the world, particularly, those who have been considered “others” by one’s tribe.

[2] What We Mean by “Tribe" |  We will use the word "tribe" or “tribal” frequently here. It is proper, therefore, to describe it further. “My tribe” can mean many things. It’s basically the human group that I consider “my own people” or my “in-group.” Hence, “my tribe” can refer to: my family and extended family, my clan, my village. It can also refer to: my race, my culture, my social and economic class, my gender and gender-orientation. More specifically for our purposes here, we should be aware that “my tribe” has also meant “my religion and my religious community” for many people in past history and continues to mean so in the present.

Note that it is of course natural and good to value one's "tribe." We affirm that. However, we should also remember that if we uncritically overvalue our tribe in a way that excludes others, that unfortunately results in neglecting other groups or, worse yet, it can make us marginalize, discriminate against, and even cause harm to others not included in our tribe.

[3] Worldview and Its Pervasive Character | Our aim in this reflection is to understand better the potential contribution that spiritual-religious traditions can make to the building of a truly just and peaceful global world. To reach that aim, it is important first to recognize the importance of “worldview” and how that is a key to humans becoming active and committed global citizens.

A worldview is, literally speaking, the way by which one views and understands the world. It is a combination of all the influences one has had in one’s life up to this point. One is largely unconscious of it but it informs practically all the areas—big and small—in life: what one believes; what one holds as true or false; how one approaches life; how one relates to others, and so forth. It is like the pond someone is swimming in if they were a fish.

Another useful analogy to understand worldview is this: It’s like someone’s mother language and all the complex grammatical rules that make up that language. One is largely unconscious of this process, but people speak their mother language perfectly, without being aware that they’re actually following all the complex grammatical rules of the language flawlessly as they speak. We only experience how actually complex any language is when we learn a foreign language and, as if for the first time, marvel at how effortlessly native speakers can speak a language that, for us, seems so difficult to learn. Thus, our mother language is an accurate image of the all-pervasive, total character of our keyword here—worldview, in the life of individuals as well as groups of people.

[4] Religion is a Worldview |   It is obvious that religion (or any spiritual tradition for that matter) is definitely a worldview. It is a way of viewing the world which usually involves some “ultimate reality” that is meant to pervade the whole existence of believers, influencing how they understand the world and informing them how they should live their lives if they want to reach the particular religion’s ultimate goal. That goal may be the Christian union with God, Buddhism’s Nirvana, Islam’s total surrender to God or Judaism’s fidelity to the covenant, and so forth. Moreover, it is good to be aware that a religious worldview has an arguably stronger hold on the psyches of those who are living entirely within it because they believe that this particular worldview has been somehow “revealed” and gifted to them by an ultimate or divine Being or Entity, hence, carries with it some kind of absolute character. 

[5] How Worldviews Develop |   There is a basic and foundational principle about worldviews: Worldviews can and do undergo a process of evolution/development from: earlier, basic, (arguably) immature and more selfish stages – to: more advanced, more inclusive, (arguably) more mature stages. Since religions are worldviews, that principle is equally true about religions.

Up until now, the various spiritual-religious traditions of the world have not given much attention to the process of how spiritual-religious worldviews evolve and develop in individuals (as well as in whole groups of people). And this is perhaps one of the major things that religions lack which must definitely be rectified: a lack of knowledge and awareness of developmental processes as explicitly applied to religious faith.

To elaborate on this, various developmental studies have pointed out that humans (across different cultures and historical eras) go through a predictable general pattern of growth or development in their worldviews.

The pattern usually begins with a first level (Stage #1), a stage at the start of life that can be described as Egocentric. This is a stage in which one’s worldview is focused on oneself. Babies and young children are clear evidence of this. From that stage though, if humans would develop properly, they should grow and transcend their natural egocentric worldview and move on to being (2) Ethnocentric, a stage in which the person goes beyond and overcomes the “natural self-centered focus” of life’s initial stages. Instead, the person advances to a stage in which they can include the people closest to them (one's "tribe" or "in-group") as valuable for themselves. In short, the circle of one’s concern is getting bigger as one grows. That is a sign of good human development.

[6] Moving Beyond Ethnocentricity in a Global Community |  Today, in our more interconnected, diverse, and globalized world, it is more urgent that one should not stop at the ethnocentric stage unlike in the past. From an exclusive focus on one's "tribe" or “in-group” (ethnocentric stage), people in a globalized, interdependent world, as an ideal, should grow further into higher worldview stages, that is, (Stage #3) Worldcentric, a stage in which we acknowledge that those who, up to this point, were considered "Others" (by our “in-group”)  are deserving of the following things: at the basic level, a just and humane treatment and, if possible, also friendship and care. The highest level of development would be becoming more (4) Cosmocentric, a stage in which we consider not only humans but also other living and non-living things (our whole cosmos even!) as the objects of our concern and care. This cosmocentric dimension is in the forefront today in our globalized world as we become more aware of the precarious situation in which the ecological order of our earth finds itself.

Understanding Religion and Which Aspects of It Can Impede or Advance Human Flourishing

 

Philosopher Ken Wilber's Keynote Address at the Integral European Conference (IEC) 2018 

(The Original Title of Wilber’s Lecture)

Is Religion Evolution’s Ally or Enemy?

 

LINK (in the public domain): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z9vyJDME7w&t=2118s

Published: Oct 1, 2018 / Accessed: 2021-05-11

 

(The numbers in-between parentheses are timestamps. Parts in blue are my own [jkk] annotations to Wilber’s talk. When parts are italicized within Wilber’s talk, those are my own emphases. Special thanks to my research assistant Christine Atchison for help with the transcription of Wilber's talk.)

[jkk annotation] Have you ever wondered why religion can produce both the best things and the worst things in the world? I think the best way to answer that is by explaining religion through what is called “the Integral Theory.” I’ve found that this talk of philosopher Ken Wilber, the major proponent and exponent of the Integral Theory, is one of the best and most succinct-yet-complete presentations that could help us gain a good “big picture” of religion – its lights and shadows, its tremendous potential as well as its darkest dysfunctionalities. This talk of Wilber titled “Is Religion Evolution’s Ally or Enemy,” gives us an excellent overview of an understanding of religion and spirituality that could help humanity advance through the proper developmental stages and grow into a more mature and more holistic state as individuals and as groups, and also experience the highest states of bliss that religious traditions envision.

 

Introductory Remarks on Religion in the West

     Hello everybody, my talk is titled ‘Religion: Evolution’s Ally or Enemy?’. So let me start by asking ‘what are we going to do with this thing called Religion?’ Around two or three hundred years ago the percentage of people in, for example, [Northern] Europe who considered themselves ‘churched’, that is, serious and regular followers of a traditional church (in this case the Catholic Church) was well over 90 %. Today the percentage of people in Northern Europe who consider themselves ‘churched’ is less than 11%. The number of people who are followers of any sort of traditional religion has dropped dramatically—especially in the modern, developed countries. In the pre-modern or developing countries the numbers of religious believers are much higher and, as we’ll see, there’s a reason for that. But, in general—and this is the central point—the more evolved a country is, the less religious it is. And this is true for individuals as well; the more evolved a person is, the less religious they’re likely to be. Why is that? Are religion and evolution the opposite of each other so that the more you have of one, the less you have of the other? Is religion an ally of evolution or its enemy?

 

Defining Terms: Spiritual Intelligence and Spiritual Experience

     First of all, we need to understand what we mean by the word religion. There are at least two very different meanings of that word. One meaning is called religious intelligence or spiritual intelligence. It’s how we think about spirit, how we think about what we believe is an ultimate reality or ultimate concern. It’s how we interpret or conceptualize or think about ultimate reality. The other meaning is not spiritual intelligence but direct spiritual experience or immediate religious experience. Human beings have both capacities—spiritual intelligence and spiritual experience.

[jkk annotation] I would avoid using the word “religion” altogether because it has negative connotations nowadays in many circles. We can use terms with a more positive resonance for people today, such as the Japanese word ikigai (生き甲斐) or “spirituality”. “Human beings are spiritual beings” might be a foundational principle. Why? Because a person is usually animated and motivated to engage with life by interior and exterior factors that are “greater than (but also inclusive of) the physical.” That is just another way to say “spiritual.” Hence, the spiritual dimension plays a foundational and crucial role in humans.

     In certain instances, like listening to beautiful music, walking in nature, making love, having a peak experience or an altered state of consciousness, humans can have a direct spiritual experience. William James explored these direct spiritual experiences in his classic book The Varieties of Religious Experience. But even if we have a direct spiritual experience, we almost always start interpreting it, conceptualizing it, giving it some sort of meaning or using some sort of conceptual framework—however simple—to make sense of it. So, as soon as we have any direct or religious or spiritual experience, we use our spiritual intelligence to interpret it, conceptualize it, frame it. We have spiritual experience and we have spiritual intelligence. (4:15) 

     Sometimes people have not had any direct spiritual experience, but they have lots of ideas and thoughts about what spirit is or what they think spirit is like. Most people have some sort of idea of what an ultimate reality is like, or at least what the most important reality or ultimate concern is for themselves. In other words, they have some form of spiritual intelligence, however vague or crude, but they have no direct spiritual experience. Some of these people even have very advanced spiritual intelligence. They’ve read texts from all the world’s great religions; they know all sorts of theological theories and ideas. They’ve thought a great deal about spirit and ultimate realities They might even have tried to weave together all of the latest leading-edge versions of modern science into a ‘new paradigm’ and then claim that this new paradigm represents a mystical, interwoven unity of all reality—just like Zen, or Daoism, or Vedanta. And yet, even though they believe this theory they themselves have never actually had a genuine spiritual experience in their life. So when it comes to spiritual reality they have lots of knowledge by description (or spiritual intelligence), but no direct knowledge by acquaintance (or direct spiritual experience, or satori, or enlightenment).

     On the other hand, others have had a great deal of spiritual experience or several of them, but they can’t articulate it well or show how it relates to all the other areas of life. They have much spiritual experience but not much spiritual intelligence. These two forms of religious engagement—spiritual intelligence and spiritual experience—are very different in their fundamental nature and recognizing that difference is truly important, as we’ll see. These two forms cannot be completely separated from each other but they are different in several important ways and it’s crucial to recognize that difference. Spiritual experience, in its highest form, is claimed by its adherents to be a direct and immediate experience of pure one-ness with an ultimate reality.

     This experience itself has been known in almost every major culture throughout history and around the world and given names such as enlightenment, awakening, metamorphosis, Satori, Moksha, Fanaa—the great liberation. And this is said to result in states described as ultimate unity consciousness, divine oneness, pure unity, infinite wholeness, or the supreme identity. Supreme because it is said to be one with spirit and thus one with the entire universe. And this oneness is said to constitute a person’s real self or true self. For the moment, simply assuming that something like this ultimate, religious, experience exists, I refer to this overall process in any of its forms as ‘waking up’. ‘Waking up’ is the ultimate form of spiritual experience. (8:22).

     Spiritual intelligence, on the other hand, is one of up to a dozen multiple intelligences that all human beings possess. That is, in addition to cognitive intelligence we have emotional intelligence, moral intelligence, aesthetic intelligence, linguistic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence and, yes, spiritual intelligence. These are not so much experiences as they are intelligences. That is, mental operations that address fundamental questions faced by humans. Emotional intelligence, for example, addresses the issue of ‘what are you (or I) feeling?’. Moral intelligence addresses the question ‘what is the right thing to do?’. And spiritual intelligence is the thinking process that humans engage whenever they think about some sort of ultimate reality or ultimate concern. A person might use their spiritual intelligence and decide that there really isn’t any spirit or ultimate reality—they’re atheistic. Or they might conclude that they just can’t decide that issue—they’re agnostic. Or, as I said, they might look at today’s leading-edge sciences and come up with a new paradigm about a fully interwoven and unified nature. In any of those cases, they’re using their spiritual intelligence because they’re thinking about ultimate realities.

Note Well: Spiritual Intelligence, according to Wilber, is one of several multiple intelligences that human beings possess.

     Now, like all multiple intelligences, spiritual intelligence grows and develops through a well-known sequence of developmental stages. People aren’t born with any of their multiple intelligences operating at their highest and most mature levels. Like all things in nature, any multiple intelligence has to grow and develop through a series of stages. Each stage being more functional, more complex, and more mature. The same is definitely true of spiritual intelligence. So, what stages does spiritual intelligence grow through? What stages are there? (11:05).

[jkk annotation] To summarize：Religion―Spirituality consists of two main factors：(1) Spiritual Experience and (2) Spiritual Intelligence. Traditional religions know #1 well; they unfortunately are largely unaware of #2 and hence they cannot “get” why religion has become irrelevant to many people in the West today.

My Theory of Religion - Part 1

 

[1] Reality 

Here, for the sake of illustrating my point, I will imagine first that everyone is born with a tabula rasa [a clean slate] regarding religion. Of course, that never happens because everyone is already born into some concrete traditions and cultures.

Each and every human being is born into reality (into a world, into "life") which--we can say--can be all of these things at the same time:  

• Reality can be full of potential meaning
• However, it is also utterly mysterious. There are lots of things to understand and fathom but ultimately no one will be able to figure out the "ultimate meaning of it all." Hence, in the final analysis, reality is a great mystery.
• We can see reality also as "neutral" in the sense that it does not have a meaning unless someone imputes a particular meaning to it
• Lastly (if you take it in a pessimistic way), reality can also be seen as meaningless in itself. People just impute meaning to it because living in a meaningless world is scary for humans.

When faced with this reality, we humans cannot exist in a meaningless-vacuum. We need to "make sense" of this reality (this world, this life). I locate the roots of what we know as "religion" and "spirituality" precisely in this human effort to make sense of reality.

 

[2] The "Meaning of It All" |  We humans are equipped with a kind of "spiritual intelligence." Spiritual intelligence is just one of the dozen or so multiple intelligences that exist. They include: cognitive intelligence, musical intelligence, moral intelligence, motor intelligence, etc. This spiritual intelligence is what drives us to seek for a possible "meaning of it all." In short, there is a powerful urge deep within humans that leads us to look for "the big picture" of the whole of reality, an encompassing worldview or meta-narrative that would potentially make sense of everything, the ONE thing that "makes the whole thing tick." Let me define spiritual intelligence here as the deep desire hardwired in humans to search for "the meaning of it all" through depth and transcendence. That is, we proceed on this life-long search for meaning (1) by going into the deepest parts of ourselves to find what is truly authentic, and, at the same time, (2) by going beyond ourselves to selflessly pursue something bigger than ourselves that could bring a fuller meaning to our existence. The former (1) involves introspective work, the "journey within," while the latter (2) involves transcending our petty, selfish ego or desires through service to others and to the world. 

 

[3] Spiritual Intelligence |  We call this drive to search for meaning "spiritual" intelligence because most humans in history have believed that the "meaning of it all" can be found not only in the material or physical things that we can access with our senses (or that conventional science can prove). Instead, the deepest and truest meaning of reality--according to this more traditional theory of reality--could be found in a dimension that is beyond the physical, in short, in a spiritual dimension. Plato's allegory of the cave illustrates this. In the novel The Little Prince, this is expressed as: "What is essential is invisible to the eye."

 

[4] "God"  |  It is this active spiritual intelligence that has led humans in history to posit theories about reality, claiming for example that there is a supreme spiritual Being that is behind everything, a Being that is known in the Western religious traditions as "God." This Being (at least in the Western monotheistic traditions) is the source and creator of all; It continually acts to sustain, heal, and save everything; It is also the ultimate goal and fulfillment of everything. In non-Western spiritual traditions, the concept of "God" may not be dominant but there is a similar spiritual reality that is posited as the heart of all reality, such as "Nothingness" in Buddhism.

 

[5] Spiritual Experience  |   What led many to posit the existence of "God" or some other ultimate reality? The cause seems to lie in what is called "spiritual experience." Alternatively, it is also known as "religious experience," "mystical experience," "contemplative experience," or even "transpersonal experience." "Spiritual experience" has been a universal occurrence found in all cultures and historical periods. Many spiritual practitioners have had experiences that brought them to realize that there is indeed a bigger dimension beyond our normal, physical existence which is benevolent and in which every single thing in the universe is connected. Hence, one often hears expressions from mystics and sages to the effect that "Everything is One" -- one in this bigger, benevolent being or dimension which encompasses everything.

 

[6] Tradition |  It is likewise true that humans do not have to "reinvent the wheel" every single time because we are already born into particular traditions, also known as "cultures." Tradition is an accumulation of meaning, experience, and knowledge that humans have had as a group. They see the world through it and live within it. They hand it on to those who are in their communities for posterity. Those who are born into human communities draw on tradition to understand the world. Tradition is the foundation of worldview. Religion has been an important part of tradition.

 

[7] The Ambivalence of Tradition |  Tradition (I'm thinking particularly of religious tradition) can be good for us because it provides us with the wisdom, knowledge, and experience of past generations. However, tradition also has its dark sides because through it we inherit the dysfunctionalities, downright idiocies, and very limited perspectives of past generations. 

 

[8] The Clash between Tradition and Innovation in Religion |  Both tradition and innovation have important roles to play in religion and spirituality. Tradition anchors us to the past and what has been valued in history. We should not forget though that there are dark sides in any tradition. Innovation is the willingness to think in new ways or to create new forms that would enable us to respond more adequately to the needs and challenges that present themselves to us in the present. There is often a relation of tension between these two in religious communities. Those who tend to cling to tradition are frequently known as "conservatives" and those who are more willing to embrace innovation are  called "liberals." Holding both in a creative tension is the ideal. 

 

[9] Idolatry |   At the end of the day, we have to say though that "reality" or "the world" is ultimately a great, big mystery that cannot be figured out completely. In the monotheistic traditions, this is usually expressed as "the utter mysteriousness” of the supreme reality - God. Despite our best efforts, reality/life /God cannot be tamed ... It frequently surprises us in very unexpected ways.  The big temptation of institutional religion is to pretend that it possesses supreme knowledge about the ultimate reality. In the Western monotheistic traditions (particularly, in Christianity), there has been a consistent effort to "set things in stone" (dogmatize them) by investing absolute truth in a teaching authority (e.g. the hierarchy or the Bible). This is, in the final analysis, a form of idolatry that is pointed out as the principal sin in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. 

 

[10] The Necessity of Deconstruction in Religion  |  Institutional religions are relatively stable structures or systems. We grow attached to them. We try to make them unchangeable and even absolute and thus fall into idolatry. Thus, we convince ourselves that we have absolutely true factors such as an infallible pope or an inerrant Bible. But if there be truly a God, this God can never be forced into a hierarchical system or an inerrant book. This God will be so much bigger and greater than any human religious "system" or institution that we can come up with. Hence, there is a need to constantly "deconstruct" these religious structures or systems that we humans construct because all of them are too small and limited. (Philosopher of Religion John Caputo’s work on deconstruction can be utilized with much profit regarding this topic.)

---

What's the Meaning of Life and Other Perplexing Questions

 Four Perplexing Questions: Why is there no “happily ever after”? / What is true love? / What’s the meaning of life? / Why “Happiness” may not be the best word to describe your life goal?

(These reflections are already part of our efforts to review the different things we’ve been studying so far in this course on the perplexing issues of life. Please watch the four short video clips from the SOL on the four perplexing issues presented here.)

Review: The Greater Reality, the Big Background and Faith

     One of the major things I’ve been arguing for so far in this course on the so-called “Perplexing Issues” of life is this: Having the “Big Background” provided by the spiritual-wisdom traditions (the religions) of the world is an important help in enabling us to give better responses to the many perplexing issues (existential questions, ultimate questions) of life. And that “Big Background” can be accessed by the attitude of being (at least) open to the possibility, or even having faith-trust that there is a bigger dimension of reality, one that is not yet accessible by conventional science but has been taught by the spiritual-wisdom traditions from the very beginning. This bigger “Spirit” dimension that encompasses everything else is also known in various spiritual-wisdom traditions as “God”, “the Sacred”, “the Numinous”, “the Ultimate”, etc. 

    Many of the greatest sages and spiritual teachers in history have claimed that they experientially know this greater dimension through spiritual experience (AKA, mystical/contemplative/religious experiences). There are techniques that can increase the possibility of experiencing directly this sacred dimension taught and transmitted by practically all the spiritual-wisdom traditions. (If you want to review what philosopher Ken Wilber says about that, please go here.) 

    This view which acknowledges that humans exist in and can access material and spiritual dimensions is expressed in what is called "the Perennial Philosophy." If you want to review what the “Perennial Philosophy” claims about reality, please go here. 

 

   When that openness to the “Greater Reality” is in place, we acquire a wider and better perspective of reality and the bigger context of where we are in our efforts to give responses to the different perplexing issues of life. As we learned when we covered the topic of “Faith” (faith as a fundamental attitude of trust in the goodness of reality), this faith is the source of our continuing decision to trust that reality is good and that life is worth living and even fighting for.

     If you want to review what we discussed about faith-as-trust, go here. 

 

Four Other Perplexing Issues

     With that fundamental attitude of openness to and optimism for life, we can better go about trying to give more concrete responses to the different perplexing issues and existential questions of life. Here, I will suggest tackling these following big questions:

·         Where are we going (in an existential sense)?

·         What is true love?

·         What’s the meaning of life?

·         What is a better way than the word “happiness” to express our goal in life?

     To give some responses to these questions, I’ll be enlisting the help of the School of Life (SOL) once again. You already know them well. You know that the SOL is basically a secular school of philosophy. You can review the “eight rules” of the school of life here. 

     So, what you’ll get from the SOL are basically secular answers to these questions. Still, I think that the SOL has many excellent insights that we can use in practical life and if one has the “bigger background” (I refer to above) to complement the insights of the SOL, I think one can acquire an even deeper spiritual wisdom! (For a further discussion of the SOL's philosophy set in the context of a "Greater Reality," please go here.)

Where are We Going?

     This question can be asked in different senses. Here we are posing this question in an existential sense. This can be expressed alternatively as: Where is my life headed? What should I aim for in life? What are the “goals” that would give my life greater meaning? We often dream of a “happily ever after” goal to our life and efforts. This dream can be the cause of the many attachments and cravings we have in life. Recall that many spiritual-wisdom traditions (such as Buddhism and also Christianity) tell us that cravings and attachments can be a big obstacle for us to acquire true wisdom. Roger Walsh in his ‘Seven Essential Practices’ has, as practice #1: Transform your motivation: Reduce craving and find your soul's desire. You can review these practices here.

     However, in its usual brutally frank yet wise way, the SOL tells us starkly: “There is NO ‘happily ever after’”. The “goal” of living is the “journey” itself! View this short film (5:37) and reflect on it - Why There’s No Happily Ever After. 

What is True Love?

     Love is commonly known as “the greatest” thing in life (see 1 Corinthians 13:13). So one of the most urgent perplexing issues is: What is true love? I’m sure that you have heard many explanations of love both religious and secular. In line with this, the same Roger Walsh in his ‘Seven Essential Practices’ has, as practice #2: Cultivate emotional wisdom: Heal your heart and learn to love.

     I think that the SOL has a fresh perspective on the nature of true love. View this short film (5:37) and reflect on it - What True Love Really Is.

What’s the Meaning of Life?

     Of course this question is one of the most asked existential questions. Each religious or spiritual-wisdom tradition tries to give us answers to this urgent question. Let’s see what the SOL suggests about this question – (4:59) What’s the Meaning of Life? 

Is the "Pursuit of Happiness" the Major Goal of Life?

     This is another one of the “biggies.” Nowadays, we often hear that the pursuit of happiness is one major goal of life. But is it really? Why is there so much unhappiness both in our lives and in the lives of others? Here is another fresh perspective from the SOL. It says that perhaps the word “happiness” is not the best way to express the goal of life. It then takes a hint from ancient Greek philosophy and urges us to consider instead an alternative way to express what we should be trying to reach in life – Why ‘Happiness’ is a Useless Word and an Alternative (3:28).

***

    You don't have to agree with any of the above perspectives. What is more important is that you listen with an open-minded attitude to different perspectives, reflect on them, and formulate your own critically thought-out answers to those different perplexing questions of life.

What is Religion? Six Insightful Statements (from Marcus Borg) to Describe It

 

What is Religion? Six Insightful Statements to Describe It

By the late Marcus Borg (biblical scholar and theologian)

Found in the public domain at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHIv-c-Rpzw&t=0s&index=2&list=WL  /  (from 08:30 to 21:05) / Annotations by Julius-Kei Kato

(The main text is a transcript of Marcus Borg’s talk. Italicized parts within square brackets [ ] are my own [jkk’s] annotations.)

 

Marcus Borg:  I will develop this part of my lecture by describing a general understanding of religions with six statements. All six statements are commonly affirmed within the academic study of religion. That is, there is widespread agreement amongst scholars of religion about these statements. In each case, I will put the statement into a very short sentence and then of course explain it.

 

[1] Religions as Cultural-Linguistic Traditions

First statement about religions: "Religions are cultural - linguistic traditions." That’s pretty abstract but it's actually a very helpful definition. Let me repeat it: Religions are cultural-linguistic traditions and I owe this language to George Lindbeck of Yale Divinity School. I'm not sure that it’s original with him, but that's where I ran into it. And what it means to say is that each religion originates within a particular culture. And thus, it uses the language and symbols of that culture. So, in that sense each religion is a cultural-linguistic tradition. Moreover, if that religion survives for any length of time and, of course, all major religions have. If that religion survives, it becomes a cultural-linguistic tradition in its own right. That is, it becomes a way of construing the world, of structuring the world, and it has its own particular language and symbols.

     And thus, being Christian or Jewish or Muslim is a little bit like being French or Italian. To be French means not only knowing French (the language). It also means knowing something about the ethos of being French. It means to have lived within a French world and to have that world structure your vision of life. And of course there's a sense in which being religious is different from this as well because it is a much more universal identity - one that transcends national, ethnic, and racial boundaries but nevertheless it is very helpful to think of religions as cultural-linguistic traditions, each with its own language, symbols, etc.

 

[2] Religions as Human Constructions

Second statement about religions, "Religions are human constructions". Religions are human constructions or human products. This is a corollary of the first statement of religions as cultural-linguistic traditions. Religions are human creations and, within that, I'm including their scriptures. Their scriptures are human products, and thus for Christians, the Bible is a human product. The religions’ teachings, their doctrines, their rituals, and their practices, all of these are human creations, human constructions.

     This time I'll use a phrase from a Harvard religious scholar, Gordon Kaufman. Kaufman speaks of religions as " Imaginative human constructions." And by imaginative he doesn't mean imagined, imaginative and sort of a negative sense of the word as when we say about something that sounds really far-fetched or that's really imaginative, not in that sense but imaginative in the sense of both creative, as well as using the language of the imagination, the language of images and symbols, and story, and so forth.

     Now, of course not all religious people would agree with this statement that, "Religions are human products or human constructions." Within the three major Western Religions, the Abrahamic traditions, as they are commonly called, there are many who would say that their religion comes from God, that it's a divine product and not a human product. I think you are all aware that official Muslim teaching is that, the Koran was dictated by Allah to Muhammad. Within Judaism, Orthodox Jews, not all Jews but Orthodox Jews typically affirm that the Torah including the laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai that are included in the Pentateuch but also the ‘Oral Torah’, all of it was given directly by God to Moses. And of course, fundamentalist Christians typically claim that the Bible is a divine product, and thus infallible and inerrant. But, within the framework of the academic study of religion, these claims look like a common human tendency to ground their sacred traditions in God. That is, if lots of religious traditions say this (that “our traditions come from God”), we can say then that one of the characteristics of religions is that they tend to ground their traditions in divine origin. 

[When seen in a humanistic way, we can say that, in order to strengthen the claims that religions make, some of the key figures involved in the institutionalization of a particular religious tradition established at a certain point in history the notion that this particular religion (e.g. Christianity) was “revealed” directly by God. Seen from a more theological or faith perspective, we can say that religions often have their origins in a powerful religious/spiritual experience of certain people at the start of the religion’s history. Reflecting on their profound spiritual experience, they concluded that this experience was a revelation of God, hence, the religion that was born out of that experience “came from God”.]

 

[Borg’s statements #1 and #2 are not theological evaluations of religions. That is, they do not come from a perspective of faith. They are a result of looking at the phenomenon of religion from a purely humanistic standpoint. We can consider them, therefore, as coming from the discipline of religious studies, which does not presuppose any faith but studies religion as a human phenomenon. The statements below, however, contain some faith perspectives. Although they are still affirmed by many in the academic study of religion, they can be considered as grounded more in the discipline of theology, which presupposes religious faith but tries to deepen its understanding of faith through reason.]

 

[3] Religions as Human Responses to the Experience of the Sacred

Now, those first two statements both stress the human origins of religion. The third statement brings God back into the picture, namely, "Religions are responses to the experience of the sacred or the experience of God, or the spirit." Those terms are ones I use synonymously and interchangeably. I take the reality of God very seriously. I am utterly convinced that there is a “More,” to use [philosopher and psychologist] William James's marvellously generic term for the sacred -- a stupendous, wondrous “More,” and I am convinced that this "More" has been experienced in every human culture, and that the origin of the major religious traditions lies in experiences of the "More". So, I see religions as human products but as human products created as response to the experience of the sacred in the particular culture within which each emerged.

 

[4] Religions as Wisdom Traditions

My fourth statement, "Religions are wisdom traditions." And I owe this statement to a man I'm honored to call my friend, Huston Smith [He was a widely respected US professor of world religions]. He speaks about this a lot--of religions being wisdom traditions. Wisdom (in both religion and philosophy) is concerned with the questions: "How shall I live?", "What is life about?" [Religion attempts to respond to humans’ most perplexing questions – also known as “ultimate” or “existential” questions.]  This is what the religions to a large extent are about. They are disclosures of how to live, and by that I don't mean just morals but something more comprehensive than that. They are disclosures of what life and reality are about, and it's not just that they have responses to that question, but they are the accumulated wisdom of the past of centuries of thinkers. [An insightful way to refer to the activity of learning about religions is the expression A.W.E. ‘Ancestral Wisdom Education’, as proposed by theologian Matthew Fox.] This wisdom ranges from very practical wisdom to theological and metaphysical wisdom. The religions are a treasure trove of wisdom.

 

[5] Religions as Means of Ultimate Transformation

Fifth statement: Religions are means of ultimate transformation. I'll repeat the sentence, religions are means of ultimate transformation, and I owe this short statement to Fredrick Strang, author of An Introduction to Religion textbook, published some 25 years ago or so now. Let me unpack that definition. Religions are means; it's partly that they're not ends, okay, but it's also that they are means in the sense of that they have a very practical purpose; and that practical purpose is ultimate transformation. And when we speak of ultimate transformation, we mean not just psychological transformation (important as that is) but ultimate transformation in the sense of spiritual transformation, in the sense of the transformation of the self at its deepest level. That is the very practical purpose of religion, and that transformation is from an old way of being to new way of being, from an old identity to a new identity. And the fruit or product of this transformation across religious traditions is compassion, becoming more compassionate beings. This is central to all the major religions and the saints of the various traditions look very similar in this respect.

 

[6] Religions as Sacraments of the Sacred

And sixth, and finally, "Religions are sacraments of the sacred." Religions are sacraments of the sacred. Now, let me define the word sacrament here. Those of us who are Christians are familiar of course with the two universal sacraments of the Protestant and Catholic traditions and then of course the five additional sacraments of the Catholic tradition itself. But I'm using the word sacrament in a broader sense and not just to refer to those two or those seven.

     Namely, a sacrament is a mediator of the sacred, or a sacrament is mediator of the spirit. A sacrament is anything finite and visible through which the spirit becomes present to us. Now, in this broad sense, nature can be a sacrament; music can be a sacrament. Okay, virtually everything in human history has, for somebody, been a means whereby the Spirit has been mediated to them. [This is the meaning of “a sacrament” in the broad sense: Something that makes the sacred present and tangible for us humans in our world.] 

     Now, to apply this definition to religions, the purpose of religions is to mediate the sacred [to make “the Sacred” present and tangible in a concrete way]. The purpose of their scriptures, their rituals, their practices is to become a vehicle or a vessel for the sacred to become present to us. Now, if one takes this seriously, it also has an effect upon what we think being religious means. Within the Christian tradition over the last 300 years (especially for Protestants but for Catholics as well because this is generally true of what's happened in Western Christianity since the Enlightenment), there's been an enormous emphasis on ‘believing’ as what it means to be a Christian: that to be a Christian means believing in the Bible and Jesus, and God, or in Christianity, or whatever. Well, if you see religions as a sacrament, the point is not to believe in the sacrament. The point is to live within the tradition and let the sacrament do its work within you; to let the sacrament mediate the reality of the sacred to you. And it seems to me that this is the purpose of the Buddhist tradition, the Muslim tradition, the Jewish traditions, and so forth -- that they are means whereby the sacred becomes present to people and works within people.

*****