T05-Transcendency

Introduction

Spiritualities, Religions, Philosophies

More About Transcendency

Connection

1. Paradoxical NOT Polarized

2. Individual AND Communal

Reflection

3. Rational AND Non-Rational

4. Good VERSUS Evil

Pro-Action

5. Idealism AND Practicalism

6. Cooperate NOT Oppose

Tutorial #05 – Transcendency

Introduction

I’ve written in Tutorial #02 about how the Spirituality/Paradox as a bottom line involves connection, reflection, and pro-action. Still, I have a lot of questions when it comes to the role of the Spiritual as a bottom line value, and how this plays out:

• Why should we see spirituality as important enough to expand our Triple Bottom Line to a Quadruple Bottom Line?
• What does it involve that is so crucial to the our well-being?
• Can transformation occur without spirituality?
• Why does “transcendence” seem to be the core of spirituality and transformation, and what makes that so important anyway?
• Is an equivalent of this kind of spirituality (connection, reflection, pro-action) and transcendence found in all religions? Are they also found in philosophies whose followers do not consider them to be religions (e.g., atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, other forms of ethicism and altruism)?
• Can the transcendence aspect of spirituality involve an impersonal system instead of people, and still be considered the spark for transformation? (For example, doing good for the sake of doctrine instead of for the sake of those in need?) If so, is that “legitimate”?
• Can social transformation have this kind of “spiritual” without being fully Christian? Can it be fully Christian and not show this kind of “spirituality” and/or social transformation?
• If it does not involve the kind of dynamic tension of paradox, is it still spiritual?

I’ve probably integrated these elements of the Spiritual/Paradox in my practice intuitively for a very long time. However, it’s been only a few months since the questions about Spiritual/Paradox and a Quadruple Bottom Line have flashed themselves across the radar of my soul. It just takes time to “back-cast” from where we find ourselves to figure out how we got there. So, I’ll do what I can to condense and present what I think I know in this one post.

Here’s what I hope to accomplish in this post:

1. Think aloud a bit about the similarities and/or differences among spiritualities, religions, philosophies.
2. Expand some on the three core Spiritual/Paradox aspects of connection, reflection, and pro-action.
3. Think aloud about how this all relates to transcendence, and how transcendence relates to a trajectory of transformation.

Since this is new ground to write about, I really don’t know what’s going to come up as I start into it. But here goes anyway …

Spiritualities, Religions, Philosophies

I have a number of thoughts about the interrelationships among spiritualities, religions, and philosophies. The following are not necessarily connected directly, but they do form a sort of composite picture of what I’ve been thinking about on these subjects.

These days, I hear more people say they are “spiritual,” even when they have no set, specific religious tradition. It wouldn’t surprise me to find in the next 25 years that there is a significant increase in the percentage of Western people who engage in “spiritual practices” or consider themselves to have “spiritual perspectives.” With this, I expect to see a decrease in the percentage of Westerners who self-identify with specific Christian denominations or with rationalist Western philosophies.

With the current surge in “fundamentalist atheism,” there will likely be an increase in accusations by atheists against forms of spirituality, saying that they are just as “irrational” as more formal religions. I have several responses to those personal opinions. First, I recognize that spirituality accepts that there are mysteries which simply cannot be figured out or fully understood rationally. However, just because something like spirituality is non-rational and relies on more than the mind, that does not necessarily mean it is irrational and illogical. Second, the assumption that pure rationality should be the standard by which we judge all things is simply as non-rational of a value as is choosing a spiritual or religious system as the standard. Using their own line of reasoning, couldn’t we say that the commitment to using logical reasoning to support the idea that logical reasoning and empirical testing create The Most Important Thinking Process is nothing more than its own circular logic?

The most important long-term question is not about whether we identify most with a spirituality, a religion, or a philosophy right now. The long-term issue is more about trajectory. (More on that in Part 3-3F on Watching for the “Video” of Trajectory.) Their current belief in some kind of external person, power, authority is their starting place on what can become a journey toward Jesus. When it comes to personal transformation and social transformation, God can work with people from this spirituality or that philosophy … can’t He?

Or do we believe that only fully Christian activities can be “pure”? If so, we cannot explain that, sometimes, people who do not function within a fully biblical framework of relationship with God seem to do better at living out a Christlike lifestyle than those who do have a lot of doctrinal correctness. For instance, once in a while, Jesus says things like:

• “You are not far from the Kingdom.”
• “I have not seen such faith in all of Israel!”
• “Do you want to be healed?”
• “You are a teacher in Israel, and yet you do not know these things?”

In all of this, there are some important things that I am NOT saying. For instance, I am not advocating a theology of:

Pluralism – There are many roads to God/salvation.

Relativism – Any path is just as good.

Universalism – Everyone gets there anyway.

But I am trying to say that God works with people where they are at, even when they have no Christianized background. Also, social transformation that involves transcendence beyond personal gains may be much closer to the Kingdom than we’ve been willing to recognize and admit.

Each spirituality, religion, and philosophy has some areas of resonance with biblical truth. There is common ground – not just divisive differences. We can work with the commonalities, if we choose to do so, and yet not overlook or give in to whatever aspects of their system don’t resonate with Scripture.

I’m simply saying that the trajectory of each person and each culture is distinct, because the starting places mean the specific issues along the way are different – even if the ultimate goal of Christlikeness for individuals and Kingdom culture for societies is the same. It matters more where we end up, not where we start from. I’ve written many places on this blog about that concept.

As a Christian, I believe our aim in life is to become more like Jesus Christ in our personal character, plus, while this is happening, manifest more Kingdom Culture in our social interactions. That seems the typical direction for those of us from cultural backgrounds that emphasize individuals. For people from a culture that is more communal than individual, the pattern may be reversed. Their social interactions that look like Kingdom Culture may in fact lead them toward considering the claims and character of Jesus Christ for their own personal life. Don’t Jesus Christ and true, full, and integrated Christianity transcend every culture? If so, then we’re not called to convert people to our culture and force them to join us in our particular trajectory path to Christ; we’re called to point people to Christ from where they already are, and join us at the summit with Him.

More About Transcendency

Transcendence is about “beyond-ness.” In this section, I want to expand on what it means to transcend ourselves, to move beyond potential isolation from people, or narcissism (drawing people in to draw attention to ourselves), or objectification (treating people as non-human, machines, statistics). As I thought through how to present this material, I decided to write a paragraph to introduce each point, visualize the key concepts with more artwork images from F0T0LIA/Scott Maxwell, and illustrate with a few paragraphs, mostly excerpts from previous blog posts. So, I hope that works to give a mini-composite view on each point.

Connection

1. Paradoxical NOT Polarized

Conventional Western approaches to most things involve polarizing the elements of a system, dividing it into sets. I’ve described the problem in this either/or analysis thus: “In ministry, as in medicine, to dissect it is to kill it.” When we separate something into all its component parts, we lose the whole. When we keep a system together, we can find other ways to study it without splitting it into parts that bleed the life out of it.

I am not saying by this that there is no such thing as “either/or” in spirituality. Every spiritual, religious, and philosophical system assumes some black-and-white imperatives. However, in the “both/and” pairings, we often find the reasonable “mystery and mysticism” that goes with our system. For instance, in Christianity, we are both sinner and saint. Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human, but without sin. God values both the individual and the community; both reflect aspects of His image.

So what? To keep the dynamic tension of paradox in place, we need to consider how to bridge distinctions that could otherwise negatively bias and separate us, such as: male and female, old and young, and other factors (race, national origin, economic class, etc).

Walking Couple © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #5984034

rebel gap © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #1136666

First Contact Astronaut Surrounded By Martians © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #14066675

Do you remember from the Gospels when a legal expert asked Jesus about how to inherit eternal life, and He responded to the question with a question?

“What is written in the Law? … How do you read it?”

And the man answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind,” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.

“You have answered correctly” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:25-29, NIV)

Well, at that point in 2005, I’d have been more like the lawyer, the one asking that kind of question, than the subject in Christ’s gracious and yet provocative response – the Good Samaritan. Jesus shared the account of someone who helps a wounded stranger from an enemy tribe with a gift of time, assistance, expenditure, and follow-up care. The Good Samaritan reverses my self-centered question of “Who is my neighbor?” with this humility-seeking one: “Who am I a neighbor to?”

Excerpt from Greyhound Jesus and Alabama Jimmy-Part 1 of 3 (December 2008)

2. Individual AND Communal

Focusing on connection (or reconnection) doesn’t mean we simply reverse our integration point from self to others … that’s just another form of polarity. Instead, we consciously keep the two in dynamic tension. This is difficult, but it is designed to help individuals and communities work together for the common good – where neither side controls or conquers the other, or forces him/her/them to conform.

What does it mean to value both individual and community? For one thing, it is not about an individual having vague feelings of altruism toward the group. (Have you ever seen Charles Schultz’s Peanuts cartoon where Lucy Van Pelt says, “I love mankind. It’s people I can’t stand!”) Instead, generic altruism is fulfilled through specific and personal connection with someone(s) in need. Activities must eventually connect with personal stories.

Likewise, the community needs to value the contributions of individuals. I have become increasingly concerned about this since working more with international and immigrant leaders from traditionally communal cultures. I see how the group treats individuals with creative gifts or learning styles that are not deemed acceptable. They are pressured to conform to the traditional norms of the group culture. Conformity may have worked in times past to help such people groups survive difficult circumstances and maintain cultural continuity. However, in these times of chaotic, continual change, it is precisely those change-oriented individuals who could help their cultures adapt. In the next 25 years especially, communal cultures may find themselves forced to choose between continuity with their past traditions … until those ways become toxically obsolete – or continuance into a less-certain future through cultural transformation.

Survival of one and all depends on co-valuing both individual and community, and not allowing individuals to conquer the group or the group to force individuals to conform.

Quality Scale © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #5643747

king of the hill ! © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #608087

Wannabe Converter 3000 © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #5984071

It saddens me immensely that destructive wounding can happen in our churches, and not just “in the world.” That is more than a sidenote in Lanny’s story. [My friend Lanny was an emotionally wounded man who lived with AIDS.] But, just as the wounding can go from church leaders and congregations to an individual, so the gift of restoration in the life of a damaged disciple does not remain a personal gift. Its benefits cross back over into the church, and raise the level of health in the Kingdom.

What are some of the gifts that those being restored offer to the community? I spoke of one already: that a real measure of success for a church is found in how they treat their most fragile and apparently “least-contributing” members. Such children and teens, women and men hold the power to offer a huge but intangible gift of grace to a body of disciples. They give us a mirror to how we embrace our own limitations, our own fears of uselessness and abandonment, our own prejudices to prefer the best, the beautiful, the bright. Where some would see a throwaway, we should see a thermometer that measures our level of unconditional love and the strength of our spiritual structures. Will we receive what God gave them to offer us? Will we value those who seem to hold neither high potential or high profile? […]

It seems contradictory to suggest that those who are powerless offer a powerful gift. And yet, to quote from the Code of Dinotopia, the illustrated children’s book with good systems principles for all ages: “One raindrop raises the sea.” In a consumerist model organization, the contributions of only certain people are welcomed, or only those contributions of certain types or sizes. All others are unwanted, as they are, ironically, considered unproductive. Yet what does Jesus say about the issue of giving? It’s the heart attitude, not the amount. And it is accepting what God sends, not only embracing what we desire. I believe this ties in with ways we choose to work together, and shapes the messages we broadcast about who/what we value. This may be especially true of those in leadership roles – something that I find of growing concern these days.

For instance, Lanny was not a leader in the usual sense, either before or after his restoration process. He had no role of authority over the lives of others. And yet, I would suggest that he held a unique power in the lives of others, through his very powerlessness – yet the possibility to experience restoration in community. That was his best gift to the Body of Christ. It allowed those of us around him to embody God’s perspectives on embracing human dignity, avoiding judgmentalism, and exercising perseverance.

Excerpt from Redemption and Restoration Part 2-The Restoration of the Powerful (March 2009)

Reflection

3. Rational AND Non-Rational

Paradoxical reflection is an important aspect of navigating our spirituality. In this, we consider together elements that might typically be considered separate from or opposed to each other. For instance, we actively reflect on how God seems to be working providentially in our lives, instead of thinking/feeling that He is “gone on vacation” and doesn’t intimately care about the details of our days. Or, we reflect on how our contributions affect – for better or for worse – the groups we participate in, and vice versa.

This type of reflection is far more interactive, and involves more aspects of our being. High-quality interpretation of circumstances, discernment of direction, and guidance into action are not just based on pure rationality, but include elements of mystery, and a sense of God’s providential design already implanted in us. It involves all of who we are – gut feelings, intuitions and hunches, imagination and hope, etc. And just because it is not all rational or common sense does not mean it is irrational or senseless. We need to engage our heart/soul and our brain.

Balance Heart And Mind © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #5603497

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life. (Proverbs 13:12, NASB) […]

I’ve long been drawn to the theme of hope. I’m not quite sure why. Perhaps it’s because I’ve sometimes had to endure various difficulties that last for decades – and without hope, I do not know how I could’ve survived. On my own, I’d end up a narcissist + nihilist … now, there’s a toxic combo!

Or maybe I’m drawn to hope because it is, in great part, a function of “sanctified imagination.” (As is prayer, and I pray. A lot. Because the inevitable if God does not somehow intervene would be unimaginable!) Imagination allows me to see through eyes of faith other possibilities beyond what is present. And that same imagination which helps me foresee other scenarios for the future, also helps me help others discern their trajectory, based on who they are at a deeper level than might be apparent. (In the interest of disclosure, I must say that it doesn’t always work with myself as well as it does for others. But then, isn’t it so that most gifts we have don’t always work in the first person? Because we’re wired for relationship, we need others to declare what they see that we are blind to, whether the good or the bad.)

From my point of view, I went on the trip to Houston via Greyhound because I “hoped” to reconnect with a greater sense of humanity. I’d been so enmeshed in an exhausting routine for so long that I’d lost my ability to imagine anything other than more of the same. Although my imagination had lost its flexibility, it hadn’t totally lost all viability. At least I still desired to see things differently, and it was clear enough that I needed a significant break and a breakthrough to regain perspective. In this, I believe I longed for a good thing, and God fulfilled the longing and also brought fulfillment. It was that hope-translated-to-tree-of-life phenomenon!

Personally, I think how this happens is one of the mysteries of faith in following Jesus. When the Scriptures talk about God giving us the desires of our hearts, you have to wonder whether He means that in the sense of an object (i.e., He fulfills those desires that we develop in our heart) or a subject (i.e., He puts those desires into our heart). It makes sense to me that it’s both: He puts desires into our heart, and then delights to fulfill what desires He finds developed there. And thus He brings us into His story by implanting godly desires in us that bear fruit in His season – not ours.

Excerpt from Greyhound Jesus and Alabama Jimmy-Part 3 of 3 (December 2008)

4. Good VERSUS Evil

We are not alone in the universe, and it is not just God and us. There are – in biblical Christianity, at least – the presence of angels and demons, whose power is not as great as God’s and whose influence affects the world of humanity for good and for evil. These are forces that we should neither ignore nor obsess over. Instead, we should observe circumstances with eyes open to the possibility that although these other beings are typically invisible to us, they are actively involved in the picture of our lives nevertheless.

The sort of balanced paradoxical spirituality I am advocating here demonstrates a conscious awareness of the presence of evil, suffering, and infliction of toxic harm on people – not just good, utopia, and model membership or leadership.

Good Or Evil ? © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #6928112

Note: There were other image options, but I chose the one where the angel and demon are smaller than the person. Other images had the angel and demon the same size as human. Still others showed the angel and demon using the person for their own tug-of-war, as if the contest of strength is theirs instead of a contest of human will in choosing right over wrong. Basically, neither angels nor demons can force humans to decide, only influence them … unless people intentionally give themselves over to evil. But we must keep choosing good to avoid falling into the traps of evil.

And, you may ask, “What was the ‘surprising observation’ of which you speak?” Although I rarely heard Full On Good participants talk about a specific philosophy, or religion, or faith, I did hear the language of spirituality in almost every presentation and conversation. How can we even talk about doing “good” to affect our world for “the better,” unless we believe there is also a “bad” or a “toxic” or an “evil” that will otherwise turn our world for the worse unless we push back on it? How can we talk about choosing to pursue transformational enterprises unless we have some kind of underlying destiny or design that urges us in that direction? How can we even talk about a future and a hope and transformation unless we believe in something transcendent?

Excerpt from In the darkest of times, just before the dawn … (October 2009)

Pro-Action

5. Idealism AND Practicalism

For some of us, practitioner action is more native to our design than is theologian theorizing. Either way, we do need both. Actions without theory are more about pragmatism – and that does not give us a framework for understanding how to act with wisdom … only how to act with what works. And just because something works, that doesn’t tell us why it works, whether it works everywhere, whether it will always work, or whether it has long-term negative effects.

Theory without actions is no better. As James states, faith without works is dead. Paradoxical spirituality is about a faith that works, beliefs that motivate to behaviors, theory that leads to actions.

Might I suggest that idealism blended with practicalism brings about constructive realism. They temper one another to bring about hope-filled action. And what brings this about? Questions that we reflect upon, plus our sanctified imagination to consider positive futures, can lead to pro-activity motivation.

Answer Machine © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #5984122

[S]ometimes I need something relatively positive as an intentional antidotation to what is most likely my default orientation about my own situation, which is relatively negativistic, if not downright nihilistic. (You know us nihilists … we’re the ones who believe that the pessimist is too optimistic!)

[…] I recalled the theme of a support group book my friend Jonathan Hunter wrote in the late 1990s: Embracing Life. I met Jonathan during the 1980s when I served as a volunteer in ministry to people infected or affected by HIV disease. He originally designed The Embracing Life Series: Healing Transformation in Christ for people in life-threatening stages of HIV disease, to help them:

1. Process how terminal illness was negatively affecting their view of self in Christ.
2. Embrace life instead of succumb to a “spirit of death.”
3. Take their rightful place in the Body of Christ as a family member with something to offer – not simply someone who needs to receive.

But these themes are far more universal. How many of us with chronic [health] conditions – and other difficult life situations – deal with similar issues? We lower our horizons about who we think we are in Christ. We don’t embrace the creative possibilities in the life circumstances we have. We fail to step forward into our true identity – full siblings in the Body of Christ. With life-dominating situations, it’s just too easy for our “radar” to turn into orbiting around a negative integration point instead of at least moving forward with some positive actions. But a static state is no better. Unless we move spiritually – even if we cannot move physically – how can we have a living hope to share, as we experience Christ sustaining us?

Excerpt from Roadtrip to the Roundtable-03. “Right-Angle Horizon Lines” (June 2009)

6. Cooperate NOT Oppose

I’ve expressed many times and places before that I think collaboration is one of the hardest issues in this era of extreme changes. Because of their paradigms – not their gender or age or race or etc. – some people push for maintaining the past while others pull for sustaining into the future. Some confuse healthy interdependence with unhealthy emotional dependency. Some equate efficiency and effectiveness with success, while others view that as failure unless there is creative elegance and treating people humanely. Some require hierarchical leadership as a supposed safeguard to anyone hijacking the purposes of the organization, while others prefer a “flat” leadership structure of peers and see pyramid leadership as overcontrolling.

With so many differences in perspectives and values, it is far easier to oppose one another than to cooperate. This can show up as: splitting up relationships, fusing groups together to block progress, stepping on or stepping over others, coercing to conform, belittling and intimidating, appearing friendly but acting ugly, talking at without listening to, stifling critiques (even constructive ones) and dissent, seducing people into taking sides, plagiarizing the work of others instead of doing their own research and thinking. All of these forms of opposition have long-run consequences on the viability and sustainability of a group.

Do we really want to survive and leave a legacy where there are healthy next generations of people to receive it and pass it along to those after them? Then, cooperate and collaborate we must. There is no other way forward, if we want to journey together into the most preferable future possible for our group, team, agency, organization, community. We need to: pull together as a team, work face-to-face, communicate kindly and patiently, discern our direction together, support leaders regularly and challenge them when necessary, paddle in the same direction, constantly prepare next waves of learner-leaders, create a legacy and let go of controlling it.

teamwork push car © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #938568

opposing rowing © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #855333

Group Gift © Scott Maxwell // Fotolia #5679540

Provisions in God’s Lavish Non-Economies of Scale. [I]n the world as it’s been, I’ve found it all too easy to become obsessed with efficiency (doing things right) and effectiveness (doing right things), as if all God cared about was the economical and maximum use of His resources more than about us as His reflections. Well, that’d work perfectly if the world were a machine and we were simply its managers and God were The Ultimate CEO.

But it isn’t and we aren’t and He isn’t.

Instead, God has made this world a place of providential paradox, with both simplicity and extravaganicity. These don’t have to compete, though they seem irreconcilable. We can keep them in a complementary tension which is meant to optimize our humanity – our value as those made in God’s image.

Excerpt from Greyhound Jesus and Alabama Jimmy-Part 3 of 3 (December 2008)

Part of the triple bottom line is about transparency. This fourth bottom line is about transcendency – ideals, aspirations, legacies for the next generations. So, how can we talk about being holistic, with a triple bottom line of benefiting everyone, the economy, and the environment, yet leave out a fourth bottom line befitting the spiritual?

I’ve worked in multiple sectors and with different combinations of bottom lines for a long time. I’ve also experienced the unfortunate consequences of leaders and institutions that attempt a “quadruple bypass” of the social, economical, ecological, and spiritual. It creates its own catastrophe! But, I believe, we’re aware of the damage only because we humans universally exhibit a desire for the good, for hope, for personal and social transformation toward an ideal. So, I’d suggest that if we want to amplify the new tradition of the triple bottom line, we have to surround our activities with a fourth boundary line: the spiritual.

I know, I know … it’s part of my SuperHero Sidekick special sensory perceptory … this will not be easy! But – in a world increasingly polarized by differences in paradigms – can’t we go beyond ourselves and find ways to collaborate? Those who attempt to overcontrol or undermine the process should not be kicked out, but called out. How else can we maintain a stance of cooperation without colonization? And meantime, those who want to pursue a holistic and more spiritual superhero perspective need a sidekick. Perhaps my experiences will help. And so, I begin, and we shall see how this storyline unfolds.

Excerpt from In the darkest of times, just before the dawn … (October 2009)

© 2010 Brad Sargent. All rights reserved.