The Problem with Smorgasbord Spirituality

          Many people today make the mistake of either not understanding the distinctions between various mystical traditions and so they think they’re all kind of the same. Or they make the mistake of mixing and matching beliefs or aspect of religious systems and mystical traditions that they like while rejecting the parts they don’t. I call this “Smorgasbord Spirituality”. A take what you want and leave what you don’t like on the table approach. The reason why mixing and matching concepts among world religions and mystical traditions is a violation and not something to be encouraged, is that each world religion self-contained system of beliefs. To rip one idea out of context is deflate it of meaning. For the spiritual seeker they may not see how this is a problem. Yet, if they were to dig a little deeper they would begin to see how mixing and matching doesn’t work at all. There are three tests for truth that can aid in the task of understanding a religious in a deeper way, and help to understand why mixing and matching is so problematic. The three tests are: Coherence, Consistency, and Correspondence to reality.

The Three C’s

First, the test of Coherence looks for how beliefs, truth claims and philosophical and theological propositions match up with each other.  For example, a bicycle has two tires, a chain wheel, a chain and a pedal. (There of course are other parts, but these specific parts are necessary for the bike to move). A bicycle works or can move because the parts cohere with each other. The rider pushes the pedal, which rotates the chain wheel, causing the chain to rotate, which causes the tire to rotate and thus you go forward. Worldviews, philosophical views, and religions strive for the same thing. You cannot rip the Christian doctrine of Mercy and Grace out of its theological context. The grace God gives to the sinner is meaningful because of the presence of other theological concepts such as sin, God’s attribute of Holiness, and substitutionary atonement through Christ. They all cohere in that man is sinful, God is holy, the only holy response to sin is wrath, God instead of pouring out His wrath on humanity sent His Son Jesus to die on the Cross and complete the work of substitutionary atonement. Meaning, the God redirected His wrath that was intended for us onto His Son. Thereby, not punishing us as we deserve (mercy), but instead giving us salvation through faith in Christ (grace). To rip Grace out of its theological context is to negate the very power of the concept.

Second, the test for mystical traditions, worldviews, and religious systems is Consistency. No one every likes an inconsistent person. As self-evident as this statement is some of you may need convincing especially in how this relates to religion and mysticism. Take for example the 2008 presidential campaign between John Kerry and George W. Bush. Whenever I watched the news I couldn’t tell you how many times I heard the phrase “Flip-Flopper” in reference to Kerry. It seemed for most of the race the momentum was on Kerry’s side, yet he kept swapping back and forth on major issues. As the race was drawing to a close the one factor, among others, that set the balances in Bush’ favor was the fact that Kerry was inconsistent. If there is any indication of people’s distaste for inconsistency its politics. I do find it curious how we vilify the “Flip-Flopper” when it comes to politics, but in the religious or spiritual arena we tolerate if not applaud it. Yet, in regards to eternal destiny, how much more important is our religious and spiritual beliefs than our political ones? The Bible is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over a time period of 1400 years, in three different languages Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and on 3 continents. Yet, despite all these the factors that would normally create a mangled mess; the Bible communicates a one clear message that God is our Creator, but man has fallen from fellowship with Him. Thankfully God has set out on a rescue plan to redeem sinful humanity. So that, one day faith will no longer be needed for the whole story will be consummated, evil will be defeated, and believers will have eternal intimate fellowship with the Trinity. In each piece of the story and as a whole, the themes of Creation, Fall, Redemption and Consummation can be seen.

Third, the test of Correspondence begins by asking the question, is there a clear connection between the truth claims of a religion and what we can observe in reality? For example, Hinduism claims that the universe is eternal. Christianity claims that the universe came into existence when God created it. Edwin Hubble, an astronomer in the 20^th century, in 1929 discovered that space is expanding and that there are star systems beyond the Milky Way (he was not the first one to conceive of an expanding universe, but his research and findings confirmed its validity). He surmised from that observation, that if you rewind the tape of cosmic history, everything— space, time, matter, antimatter, energy, dark energy— would have all coalesced into one point, the singularity. Cosmic history started with nothing, then the singularity burst forth with all matter, time and energy rapidly expanded. Planets, solar systems, galaxies and black holes began to form, yet the expansion from the Big Bang carries on. Big Bang cosmology gave credence to the Christian truth claim that the universe had a beginning. And so, there is a correspondence between the religious claim and what we observe in reality.

However, correspondence is not limited to issues of science; take for example the Christian idea of Humanity depravity and the Hindu idea of inner divinity. Humanity is a culpable source for great evil. This awareness of imperfection exists within each one of us even those we hold in high regard as being altruistic and self-sacrificing, for example Mohandas K. Gandhi. He was called Mahatma meaning “great soul” and Bapu meaning “father” because he stood up for the rights of underprivileged and needy. He was known for being a strong proponent of the Hindu worldview, self-divinity and universalistic thought. But even he felt the pain and frustration of his own imperfections. “For it is an unbroken torture to me that I am still so far from Him, who, as I fully know, governs every breath of my life, and whose offspring I am” (So What’s the Difference? p. 95). Another brilliant mind expressed his thoughts on the issue of depravity, G. K. Chesterton, a well known thinker in the early 1900’s, was once asked by a newspaper in England sampling some of the foremost thinkers of their time, “What is wrong with the world?” To which he promptly responded by saying, “Well you see my dear sirs, I am”. This thought-provoking answer speaks volumes of the realization Chesterton had, he recognized that the causal root of man’s problems was not because of enemy nations, extremism, intolerance and so on, or some factor outside of human nature breaking in and infecting the evil few. For Chesterton it was the sin nature within every human heart that was the cause for widespread evil.

 How does, for example, Hinduism or Buddhism explain human depravity? Buddhism offers no explanation, its only suggestion is to accept suffering as a brute fact and through one’s own efforts seek liberation. But if it our nature that is the problem, how then can we also be the answer? Hinduism proposes that each person possesses divinity.  The whole of human history is marked by subjugation of weaker people groups by dominant cultures, systematic conquering of foreign nations for the purpose of world domination (the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the unified Grecian cities under Athens, the Romans, the Carthagians, the Nazis, the Red army, and so on), slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide, political deception, the war machine churning out profit for select instigators, racial intolerance, infanticide, murder, rape, lying, cheating, inconsideration, and all the way down the line to simple human selfishness. In light of all these atrocities, what does that say about divinity? Islam does explain human as fallen and sinful. The reason for all our problems is a rebellion of what is right, rejection of the laws of God. Islam correctly identifies the problem, yet the solution is through moral perfection. At the end of one’s life, one’s good deeds are weighed against one’s sinful deeds. Whichever scale is heavier determines your eternal destiny, paradise or Hades. I again ask the question, if it is our nature that is the problem, how then can we be the answer, vis-à-vis through living a morally perfect life?

Aren't Daoism and Confucianism the Same?

            Both Daoism and Confucianism spawned forth from ancient Chinese practices and beliefs about spirits. The ancient beliefs eventually migrated to Korea and Japan, but we can see the ancient beliefs having there largest impact on China. The ancient beliefs manifest themselves mainly in the form of ancestor worship and the belief that humans are closely connected with the powers of the spirit world. In order to appease and gain favor with the ancestors or spirits one must honor them through rituals and rites. Instruction on how to conduct these ceremonies is found in the texts of the “Li”; one does this either for protection or for favor, the ancestors and spirits can be vindictive when not properly honored or they can reward when pleased. The ancients then went on to develop to more major ideas, the “Shang Ti”, which is the lord of all the ancestors and the “heaven’s gate” or simply “heaven”, the belief that the universe is made up of an impersonal force (Fisher, p 183). The latter concept mentioned influenced one of the more popular and well known beliefs in ancient china, which is called the “Chi”. Chi is the manifestation of the impersonal cosmic force that is in everything; it is made up of two characteristics, the “Yin”, which is dark, receptive, feminine and the “Yang”, bright, assertive and masculine. Many scholars and believers of Daoism and Confucianism take a pluralistic approach to their differences in beliefs. In that they see the contradictory teachings not as two separate teachings, but as two complementary teachings of the Way or Dao.

Contrasts between Daoism and Confucianism:

            After belief in ancestor worship, spirit appeasement, “Shang Ti”, “Heaven’s gate” and Chi had been established by the ancient Chinese two divergent paths of following the ancient traditions began to form. The Dao, which means “the Way”, was first developed by the writings of a sage named Lao Zi, he wrote down 5,000 characters constituting into the “Taote Ching” meaning “the Classic of the Way and its Power” (Fisher, p. 187). This work and many others make up the texts from which the Daoists derive their beliefs, which is a belief that there is no right or wrong only harmony with the Way or natural flow of all things into a unity of oneness. The Way or the Dao cannot be known or understood and it is incredibly elusive, if one thinks he has it he does not or if one is filled with any type of anxiety, happiness, sadness, greed or desire he is not in harmony with the Dao.

            At the same time that Lao Zi was writing the “Taote Ching” there was another philosopher who took seriously the beliefs of the ancients, his name was Confucius. He was born into a time of extreme political turbulence and national chaos, where political leaders were seeking their own gain and advancement. As a young man, Confucius pleaded with political leaders to return to the practices of the “Li” and a lifestyle of virtue, but none would listen to him. Confucius then turned to the youth of the nation and began to teach, his teaching focused around perfecting the world through moral living and political justice and order. He didn’t center his teachings on having mystical harmony with the cosmic forces, he was more concerned with the here and now, that in order to be good one must live morally, honoring relationships (most important the relationship between ruler and subject) and practice filial piety.

References:

Fisher, Mary Pat. (2008). Living Religions. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

            Bockover, Mary I. (October 2007). Metaphors of Self in Confucius and Descartes. Religion East and West, Volume 7, 107-120.

            Poskaite, Loreta. (2003). The Problem of Identity and Difference in Classical Chinese Philosophy. Dialogue and Universalism, 1, 177-197.

            Li, Li. (2007, May 17). Taoism Opens the Way: China Looks to the Wisdom of its Ancient Philosophy to Spread the Message of Harmony. Nation, 28.

            Tsai, PhD., Julius N. (December 2006) Eye on Religion: By the Brush and by the Sword: Daoist Perspectives on the Body, Illness and Healing. Southern Medical Journal, 99, 1452-1453.

SEX, CULTURE AND WORLDVIEWS

            Have you ever wondered how culture affects our conception of sexuality? If there is a consistent standard of sexual practices in every culture? How do different cultures see sexual problems or disorders? It is true that the perception of a sexual disorder can differ from culture to culture and for that matter the definition of sexuality can differ from culture to culture. The textbook "Abnormal Psychology" written by Barlow and Durand provides some examples of differing cultural views of sexuality, such as the sexual practices of Sambian adolescent boys in Papua New Guinea. The people believe that the male body doesn't produce its own semen naturally and that it’s inappropriate to masturbate, so the young boys roughly 7 engage in oral sex with older teenage boys. The boys then become semen providers for others, when the boys become teenagers they enter into a heterosexual marriage. Or take the example of a group in India who encourage the opposite of the Sambian tribe, the natural view of them is to have children to live together and engage in heterosexual intercourse. And one last example, in Swedish culture women are much more promiscuous, which reflects the general acceptance of promiscuity in the public eye. With so many views in mind how can we effectively asses disorder in the realm of sexuality?

          As you can see from the various examples given, there is little consistent cross-cultural standard or norm. We must also take into account that cultural conceptions change, this makes matters worse if we are to make and accurate analysis. Take for example the issue of homosexuality in the United States. Some researchers have tried to make the case that homosexuality, a sexual practice historically considered in our society a paraphilia, is due to biological factors, but the study that proposes this view has yet to be replicated and recognized by the scientific community. In my opinion, I don’t understand why we are associating what is cultural with what is right. 

           This speaks to the issue of worldviews and which worldview truth claims best correspond to reality. Since this is a rather large issue, I will only address a few points briefly here and who knows, maybe write full fledged blog one day on the issue of worldviews. The two main worldview at least in the US are Christian Theism, and Materialism, which usually entails Naturalism, Darwinian Evolution, and Atheism. Christian Theism takes into account what is, but its primary focus is on what ought to be. In other words, Christian Theism provides a philosophical and conceptual ground of what is, why things are, and the way they should be. It provides grounds to be prescriptive and not merely descriptive. So when we take the issue of sexuality, we have the groundwork for establishing norms, and recognizing deviations. In terms of a Materialistic worldview and all its entailment's we only have data on what is, that is to say, we only have descriptive data, and therefore there is no basis for making the assertion of norms, should's and prescriptive statements. 

          How does this work itself out in the real world? If you buy into the Materialistic worldview and you read the part mentioned above about the Tribe in Sambian that forces young boys as young as 7 to ingest the semen of older males, and you had a reaction of disgust, moral outrage, and you felt that the practice was wrong, then based on you're worldview, you would have no justification for feeling that way. In fact you should rightly have no feeling about it at all. The most qualitative statement you could make in regards to that issue would be a mere descriptive one, "It is something that occurs." And you would have no conceptual basis for thinking it is wrong. And yet you do, something deep inside you senses that forcing young boys against there will to perform sexual acts with an older male is intrinsically wrong. But how can this be when you're worldview doesn't allow for thinking that way. You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is."
        On the other hand, the Christian Theistic worldview has a conceptual framework that serves as a ground for thinking prescriptively about what is. We know that forcing young boys against there will to perform oral sex and ingest the semen of older males is intrinsically wrong because it violates what is right, and we know what is right because what is right is reflective of the character and nature of God. And so, the Christian Theist is justified in reacting to the sexual practices of the Sambian Tribe with disgust, moral outrage, and thinking that they are wrong for doing that. There is a logical and rational justification for thinking this way, there is no logical and rational justification for thinking this way in the Materialistic worldview, they are being illogical and irrational for thinking that is wrong. The Materialist doesn't realize it, but in order to make that qualitative claim of wrongness, they must borrow from the Christian Theistic worldview. And therefore, their worldview is utter lacking.
          If what I said is true, wouldn't it stand to reason that what I have described plays a major factor in many other debates such as the homosexuality discussion? Abortion? Contraceptives? Cross-Cultural Analysis?

Reference

 Barlow, David H. & Durand, V. Mark (2008).   Abnormal Psychology: An Integrated Approach, CengageNOW™