One of the things I disliked the most when I was Eastern Orthodox was the Church’s claim to be the “one true church”. This narrative, coupled with a distinct stream of dogmatic teaching frustrated me to no end, and certainly contributed towards my leaving Christianity. Having spent time away, over two years now, I have been considering returning to religion in some form of another. To be honest, at this point it is less a matter of if, but more a matter of when and how. Something that is deeply important to me as I consider my return is my commitment to religious pluralism. Let me explain why, and how that works!
What is Religious Pluralism?
There are various things that are often conflated with religious pluralism, which in fact it is not. Namely, a) perennialism; the belief that religions share common foundational themes and teachings (often coupled with a non-dual understanding), and b) syncretism; the blending of religious traditions to create hybrid systems. Whilst I am open to both of these things, this is not what I am defining or defending here. For our purposes, it may be helpful to map out the three major approaches to inter-religious relations:
Exclusivism: The assertion that one’s own faith is true, and all others are false (e.g. only Christianity is true, and other religions like Islam are false).
Inclusivism: The claim that whilst one’s own faith is uniquely true, other religious traditions share in said truth to varying extents (e.g. Christianity is true but other religions are true to the extent that they agree with and approximate Christianity).
Pluralism: The belief that no one faith is uniquely true, and that all religions are pointing towards and approximating an underlying truth (e.g. Christianity is one part of a more holistic and foundational truth).
Put simply, pluralism means that religions are not closed and separate dogmatic systems, but are each aspects of, perspectives on, and approaches towards, the ultimate truth that is “God”. To be clear, this doesn’t mean all religions are entirely and completely true. There are irreconcilable differences between religions and to pretend otherwise is silly and clearly leads down the road of contradiction. What pluralism claims is that each religion is true or false to the extent that it captures, embodies, and approximates Truth. This is distinct from inclusivism in that it denies that any one religion in particular, has successfully achieved holistic and complete understanding and integration of said Truth.
Religion as Spiritual Technology
Having said the above; how is it actually possible to interpret religion in a way that fits into a coherent pluralist meta-narrative? My big problem with much of progressive Christianity for example, is that it fails to account for how and why a religion can actually progress. Unfortunately, many progressives today simply abandon serious and considered theological work in favour of intellectual bankruptcy. For example, it is blatantly a contradiction to think that the Bible is at the same time the infallible word of God, and yet in error ethically and theologically in many important ways, but many attempt to hold these two ideas simultaneously nonetheless. I think one way to get around this problem is to see religion as a spiritual technology.
In my article ‘Monsters, Miracles, and Mythology’ I present the thesis that religion is essentially a cultural mythology. Today, I would certainly take less of a reductionist approach, but my basic point still stands. I said this because humans have a distinct tendency to interpolate and extrapolate their experiences of unknown or peripheral phenomena into broader narratives. Invoking my favourite epistemic and metaphysical distinction between ontological and phenomenological reality1, it is clear that we do not have the correct tools to apprehend reality directly or holistically. This is to say that we seek deeper metaphysical explanations for real phenomenological experiences- we simply cannot help it!
Whilst these narratives may gesture towards something true, good, and beautiful; they usually fail to capture the totality of whatever ontological reality underlies them. What this means is that religions are mytho-poetic narratives, and philosophical systems, that are built around the collective spiritual and mystical experience of a religious community. Often, though not always, one person (or a small group of people), act as the initial impetus behind the creation of a new religious system. To what extent we should take literally stories of the Buddha’s enlightenment under the bodhi tree, or the angel’s dictation of the Qu’ran to Muhammad, is up for debate. Regardless, they do represent unique events in the history of religious experience.
This doesn’t mean that any religion is completely true or false, but that each is a partial reflection of a deeper incomprehensible reality. This allows for four important things:
Religions to be subjectively true, but objectively incomplete, in the sense that they are a reflection of real experiences, but fail to capture true reality in a holistic manner.
Religion as a whole, and particular religions, to progress towards a deeper understanding of their own doctrines and practices and the traditions of others.
Religions to function as a spiritual technology in that they facilitate and give structure to one’s mystical journey, and aid in the individual and collective spiritual development of human beings.
People to embody the motivations behind the ‘spiritual but not religious’ idea whilst standing within a particular religious tradition.
This means that no religion is exclusively or uniquely “revealed” in the way people usually mean (at least not to the exclusion of other religions), but that all are “inspired” in so far as they are metaphysical and ethical interpretations of mystical experiences. This however does not mean one needs to totally dispense with the idea that God can or does reveal himself and/or his will to human beings in one way or another. What is does entail however, at the very least, is the collapse of any distinction between naturalistic and revelatory accounts of religion. By doing so, I don’t seek to diminish either, but simply to say that these are two ways of thinking about the same reality. God “reaching” down, and man “reaching” up, are one in the same act.
Religions then, aren’t closed dogmatic systems, but simply different ways to connect to divinity through particular philosophical frameworks and symbolic idiosyncrasies. The temptation of course is to assert the supremacy of one’s own faith, and to build a meta-narrative around a particular feature of said faith. For example, many Christians are inclusivists, but see the incarnation as the central point around which all other religious systems revolve. For pluralism to be true to it’s own vision, we ought to avoid this. Religions must only be transcended by divinity itself; or God if you will.
It is also important to say that, if God is infinite and his essence unknowable, as the apophatic stream within religion would suggest, he can be approached in an infinite amount of seemingly contradictory ways. If we as humans are merely gesturing at an ineffable truth with poetry and metaphor, then there are a great variety of images that may give us a small taste of the truth. Each religion is a spiritual, doctrinal, and ethical system which gives us a particular angle in which to approach the ultimate and ungraspable truth. Religious beliefs aren’t sets of logical propositions that are objectively true in the absolute sense, but are symbolic and iconographic representations of the deep and primordial archetypal truths of ultimate reality.
The value in the religious project is that it provides any given individual a broader framework in which to live out their spiritual journey. It also encourages ritual participation, virtuous living, and a communal mindset. I’ve spoken before in ‘Why Critiques of 'Spiritual But Not Religious' Fail’ about why I don’t find appeals to religious authority convincing, but nonetheless, these structures can provide real value. This is why I called religion a spiritual technology. In the end, all religion is, is an instrument in which to help one achieve the ultimate spiritual goal; enlightenment, salvation, deification, liberation. If it hinders instead of helping, it should be discarded. For me, for a while, it presented a barrier instead of a bridge, but now I feel lost without it.
[EDIT: I wrote a follow-up post with a few clarifications and further information about my conception of pluralism; available here]
What This Means For Me
And so to get needlessly personal, as is my wont at this stage, I want to explore where I am at in this whole journey. I left Christianity for a number of reasons, some of which, like the question of God’s existence, are no longer a present concern, as that question is settled for me. Others, like the orthodox tendency towards dogmatism and traditionalism still bother me deeply. Additionally, I am still utterly committed to a denial of an eternal hell, and would very much endorse some form of Christian universalism. With these things in mind, if I were to return to Christianity, I doubt it would be to Orthodoxy or Catholicism.
Something like Anglicanism attracts me, as I would be granted sufficient philosophical leeway to express the faith in ways that may be objectionable to orthodox-minded folks. I would also have access, although potentially to a lesser extent in the options I mentioned above, to beautiful liturgy and the full range of Christian religious rituals (e.g. the sacraments). It is also likely, if not inevitable at this stage, that the Church of England will soon begin to marry couples of the same gender. What really and ultimately attracts me to Christianity is a number of things:
Firstly, it is the spiritual heritage of my culture, and is the religion of my upbringing. They say that familiarity breeds contempt, but the opposite is also sometimes true. Christianity is simply the air we breath in Britain and Europe, and we have a long and beautiful history of saints and holy places that fill the landscape. Also, on a personal level, my philosophy and theology has very much been shaped by Christianity, and the Bible remains for me one of the most compelling texts out there. This may not be the most important consideration, especially as Christianity has global reach, but there is benefit to having a church on every corner!
Second, the person of Jesus is super compelling. Not only on a historical level, but also on the cosmic one, the concept of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection resonate with me deeply. There are few symbols that are as profound as the idea that God became man in order that we could become gods. Whether this is literally true, or whether Jesus actually rose from the dead in a “physical” body, are questions that are of secondary concern for me. What is important is the story Christianity is telling, which is a pretty damn good one! As previously mentioned, this story would include a universalist vision, and would leave no room for eternal conscious torment.
Thirdly, my panentheistic idealism fits well into the Christian metaphysical framework, and there is certainly precedent in the tradition for these concepts. It is true that my telling of panentheism may be more naturalistic then many theists would be comfortable with (and vice versa), but that doesn’t present a problem as long as we understand that we are approaching the divine with analogy and metaphor, rather than absolute logical propositions. Additionally, I see in Christ not only a cosmic metaphor for non-duality, but also a preacher who perhaps presents the clearest understanding of love and deepest vision of unity that I have come across in the religious landscape.
On the other hand, my concern is that Christianity is too reliant on a text that was written thousands of years ago, to be the primary source of theological, philosophical, spiritual, and ethical teaching. It is by no means an easy task to translate the teachings of Christ into 21st century language, and it is all too often that people are relying on metaphysical concepts and spiritual practices that may not be best prepared to deal with modern life and it’s particular problems. Of course, some will try and solve this issue by positing the necessity of a religious authority, but I find that these institutions tend towards traditionalism, and often fail to dynamically and openly address new concerns and perspectives.
On the other hand, the Baha’i Faith has been, and remains a great point of interest for me, both intellectually and spiritually. To expand:
Firstly, the Baha’i Faith to my knowledge, is one of the only religions that makes an explicit attempt at building pluralism into it’s doctrine. The idea is that the founders of each religion are “manifestations” of God, and that each come to help humanity spiritually develop, providing teachings tailored to the particular time and place. Whilst this concept certainly faces challenges if approached in a dogmatic or overly-literalist manner, it is nonetheless an interesting, compelling, and largely successful meta-narrative which wholly embraces the very thing most important to me at the present moment.
Secondly, I find many of the ethical and social teachings of the Baha’i Faith very helpful, and significantly more appropriate for the modern era. These include; the harmony of science and religion, the equality of men and women, the independent investigation of the truth, the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty, and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace. Of course, none of this is contrary to Christianity and is in fact, deeply rooted in Christian values. But these things are often not presented so clearly in the usual Christian doctrinal sources, and it takes history to reveal these truths to the church.
Thirdly, to address my metaphysics once again, whilst it may be that, at least at face value, panentheism seems at odds with the Baha’i Faith, I have come to learn that there is more wiggle room than one might expect. For starters, the various ways of thinking that have been embraced throughout religious history must be seen by Baha’is as at least partially legitimate, and second, Baha’is are committed to the idea that religion ought to speak in a manner that is useful for the time and place. This means that not only are there many differing and sometimes contrary ways to explicate theological propositions, but that metaphysics can, and has, developed throughout the various dispensations.2
I do have concerns however. Namely, I am very disappointed that despite it’s calls for the erasure of prejudice, the Baha’i Faith still considers homosexuality sinful, and therefore has wedded itself (no pun intended) to outdated conceptions of marriage, at least until the next prophet turns up. It is true however, that the majority of religious institutions worldwide have retained the traditional view of marriage, but this is often de-emphasised or frankly ignored to varying extents in Britain (the CofE as a prime example). Still, I worry I may have to work overly hard to retain systemic coherency, and that my propensity to be outspoken about this issue would be less than welcome. There are other teachings and practices I find objectionable but this issue is emblematic for me.
Of the two options, at least at the moment, it is likely (though not certain) that I will once again embrace my former Christian faith. Exactly what this means for me, and what denomination I join, is yet to be seen. Despite this, I am very grateful for the wisdom I have gleaned from the Baha’i Faith and do not wish to dispense with it as a live option altogether. Either way, there are pros and cons to any religious system, but the fact remains, that my pluralist vision is fundamental and necessary to my relationship to religion as such.
[EDIT: I decided on returning to Christianity! Please see here for more details]
Conclusion
I am deeply convicted of what I have said above regarding pluralism and if there is one thing that is certain, it is that I will not join any community that does not tolerate it. I don’t know where this journey will take me however, and like everything I have written about on this blog, I am sure things will develop in interesting ways in the future. Regardless, it is pretty clear at this stage that I require at least a minimal level of structure that a religion can provide, even if that must also come with some level of flexibility. It is a hard line to walk, and no institution or tradition gets it completely right, nor is any perfect in every way. I guess to some extent, I have always been a religious person, I just haven’t yet found the right home.
If you are inclined to support me financially, you can become a paid subscriber, or alternatively, you can click the button below to make a one-time donation at ‘Buy Me A Coffee’ (although as a Brit, I prefer tea). Thank you in advance!
I’ve written about this more times than I can count now, but my most recent and holistic attempt can be found in this article: How Consciousness Constructs Reality
This seems completely compatible with my conception of theology and how it works: ‘An Apophatic Approach to Theism’
I have not seen any one write these sentiments more beautifully and this communicate my sentiments better than I could even communicate it! I’d like to connect with you to navigate where I am with this as well.
Because as you stated in your search for Truth and navigating spaces that your philosophies may fit, you don’t want to be anywhere where your thoughts, and understanding of Truth of the infinite most high God will be rejected.
May I inbox you?
"In the end, all religion is, is an instrument in which to help one achieve the ultimate spiritual goal; enlightenment, salvation, deification, liberation."
These are all really different things, and far from an exhaustive list of ultimate spiritual goals. I've found there can be a surprising amount of metaphysical concordance between religions that see a similar state of things but pursue different goals. Buddhism and Christianity, for instance, both see the connection between suffering and attachment, but one runs away from that flame, and the other plows directly into it. There are even things like existentialism and Satanism that lift directly from Christian metaphysics and simply say, "No, thank you" to God.
The recognition that each story contains a perspective on Truth isn't really news to the deepest theological thinkers of the West, including Catholic and Orthodox ones. Smart people are usually happy to see things from another point of view. There's a surprising amount of agreement regarding the map; the disagreement is over where we should go.
Separately, as far as Christianity relying too much on text goes, I'm a big evangelist for ceasing to rely on the text and just talking to Jesus like you believe he actually exists.