The spiritual journey takes many forms, from paths marked by gradual evolution to crises requiring cataclysmic upheavals. Integral theory says that faith changes over time from prerational to rational and transrational perspectives. But much as I hate to question the spiritual path of others whose journeys have been more consistent or more gradual in their shifts of perspective, I find little to recommend in taking the path of least resistance.

I say: be bold in your belief, and even bolder in your unbelief. In my book, the transition from prerational to transrational faith is best accomplished with an extended period of denial, doubt, despair, and disillusionment. In any case, that’s the only way that worked for me. I had to doubt and deny for many years before I ultimately found a form of belief that was completely natural, totally sincere, and — I believe — ultimately true.
When the shift from pre- to trans- is complete, it may be the case that a believer’s preference of terminology has changed. Or perhaps not. The believer may yet utter the same words to the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ, Allah, or Shiva. But it’s not the terminology that matters, but the meaning bestowed on the acts of devotion.

Julian Walker worries that for believers who say their belief is transrational, it may be problematic to keep the same terminology as believers with a simpler faith. He writes in “Contemporary Theology: A Wide Spectrum with a Common Premise?”:

For me the ideas of both “transcend and include” and “differentiate to integrate” are useful here. What are we transcending and what are we including? How do we differentiate transrational ideas from prerational ideas if we continue to use the same terminology?

Speaking for myself, I would say that it usually matters very little to declare one’s own faith superior in rationality to that of others. A personal faith seems to beget a certain respect for, and sometimes admiration of, the faith of others. It’s usually of no importance whatsoever to wall off “transrational” faith and set it apart from the beliefs of the lesser educated, and those whose spiritual station of life is more conventional.

But let’s grant Julian that in some contexts it’s important to conceptually differentiate the pre- from the trans-. Doing so is not so much a matter of separating “prerational ideas” from “transrational ideas” (per Julian, emphasis mine), as separating those whose faith is fundamentally not an affair of ideas from those who have subjected their instinctively felt, emotionally charged, and unconsciously held beliefs to the cooling, tempering, and sobering demands of reason. A prerational Christian loves God because she has been taught that doing so is the proper thing to do, and because it feels right. The same person may evolve a rational love for God following appropriate education, choosing to believe that the love of God is a natural affair, human beings having been inborn with a need to find a source for meaning and a common direction for their moral compasses.

Julian continues:

If sophisticated theologians, literalist believers and non-dual mystics the world over all use the same terms from different points of view might we not do better to find specific terminology for what we really mean - so as to be clear about what we don’t reallly mean?

Perhaps this is so, but I’m skeptical that it will solve much over time. Disagreements over the meaning of God will simply become disagreements over the nature of mystical experience, Nothingness, Being, Spirit, Higher Power, etc. In this debate, it’s worth observing that if the more spiritually subtle thinkers all abandoned the use of the word “God”, then they will allow the most irresponsible of thinkers to control the most powerful and enduring idea in the history of human thought. That can’t be all good.

Julian continues:

I wonder if this kind of exploration of the terms we use and what we do and don’t mean might reveal that we are more sentimentally and superstitiously attached to prerational formulations of spirituality than we’d like to admit.

It’s obvious that emotional attachment to childhood beliefs plays a huge role in adult spirituality, and this is problematic in important ways, so I don’t have much to debate here. But the same point should be stressed about all manner of beliefs, not merely religious beliefs. Beliefs in moral principles, political affinities, gender roles, sexuality, and so forth, are all subject to evolution from lesser to more mature expressions. What strikes me is that nobody feels it’s particularly clever to argue that an adult’s attitude towards his parents is “more sentimentally and superstitiously attached to prerational formulations” of parental roles and powers “than we’d like to admit”. Nobody speaks about the process of maturation as if it were possible to eliminate belief in mother and father altogether, let alone eliminate the “terminology” of mother and father, yet in discussions of religion it is often presumed otherwise.

Julian continues:

For me, contemporary transrational spirituality has to do with meditative expansion, mind-body integration, energetic initiation and dedicated development of the spiritual gifts of intellect, contemplation, intuitive creativity, embodied experience and the raw emotional honesty of our existential condition…

And so it is worth responding that perhaps the best argument for keeping alive the transrational notion of God — say, as a panentheistic vision of Ultimate Reality, as I do — is that this approach is the most meditatively expansive, most integrative of mind and body, most initiatory of energetic flow, and most valuable for developing an honest understanding of “our existential condition”. Making such an argument in full, of course, is beyond the scope of this blog post, so I don’t want to drag this discussion too far afield. But it strikes me as enormously intuitive that the reality of God extends far beyond our concepts of the divine and into the realm of our bodies and unconscious associations.

God is embodied within our holistic being(s), and the path of progress from body to mind to spirit cannot skip over any part of the self or collective. For most of us, the content of belief changes as an individual matures, but the sentiment of the believer — oriented to living with hope rather than fear, trust rather than mistrust, and love rather than selfishness — remains a powerful attractor to religion. Where some understandably see this faith as sentimentalism, it can also be seen as a personal style (i.e., an existential option) alive with both emotion and reason. God, embodied within our holistic being, reveals its eternal consistency as a force of liberation in a changing self alive in an evolving world.

Sphere: Related Content

Technorati Tags: faith, God, panentheism, spirituality, theology, Walker

Tags: faith, God, panentheism, spirituality, theology, Walker

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm and is filed under Blog, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.