Culture Wars and Evolution

 Today, while reading some of David Platt's book, Radical, I think I figured out something. Earlier in Platt's book I was "turned on" by his emphasis of the need for the modern Christian church to de-couple from the "American Dream" (and all its materialistic values and worldly ways which have krept into the Christian culture). But I was totally turned off by his resorting to good old (actually "bad" old) sin theology as being part of his base for "radical" faith. "Why" I thought "did he go there?" It was like going 2 steps forward and 3 steps backward. I had experienced sin theology in the form of angry pulpit pounding during revival sermons in my country church as a boy. I knew this fear-mongering and anger-energy had little to do with true spirituality.

    Yes, that rage seemed radical enough. But if that is how to transcend the materialism and other distortions of the American Dream, then perhaps we would be just as well off to continue the American Dream trance that we are in! At least the American Dream offers some "internal locus of control," which empowers us to make something of our lives—empowers us to be responsible creators, or "co-creators."

   I had had enough of the authoritarian ways of thinking, in which the God in the sky runs things like a Lord or King atop a rigid heirarchy.

   I do, in fact buy into large parts of the middle class culture and "modern" thought which is embedded in the American Dream. This overall line of thought psychologically empowers us individually to participate in two major forums: in democracy and in the marketplace. And this internal locus of control sort of empowerment liberates us from the way folks thought and acted during the Middle Ages.

   After reading less than half of Radical, I felt caught between a rock and a hard place. But then I remembered Ken Wilber's metaphor (or analogy?) of a "steel lid on a pressure cooker," in reference to the psycho-cultural effects of what he called the level-line falacy (LLF).

    LLF is when the line of "spirituality" is equivocated with lower level understanding of spirituality, such as mythic (literalist) religion, etc.  I recalled how I did (and still do) agree with Ken's analysis of the dynamic which creates the pressure cooker or double bind feeling in individuals (such as me while reading Radical).

   I have no desire to go back to the rigid, mythic, level of my spiritual vehicle of Christianity. I was caught in the intersection of modern thought and old time religion. I had found myself in the crossfire of the "culture war" which (as sociologist Ray points out) rages on between "traditionals" and "moderns." 

    And then I remembered where I stand. I am, by all (or most) accounts a bonafied "cultural creative" who happens to have a few traditional leanings thrown in for good measure. Actually, according to Ray and Anderson, in their book, The Cultural Creatives, my hybid was not at all uncommon. Many Cultural Creatives choose to hold onto their traditional faiths, but have a more open view of "spirituality." And this more open, flexible, view of spirituality is consistent with modern "empowerment" and with its "internal locus of control" that I mentioned earlier. The spirituality of the Cultural Creative is more like what Ken called "transrational," than it is "pre-rational." 

  At least now I figured out my "place" in the culure war. And the timing couldn't be better. As we (I) speak, there is a big cultural/political broohaha (sp?) over a federal mandate for contraceptives to be provided by faith based health care providers who accept federal funding (Medicare, Medicaid?). Also, a higher court overturned proposition 8 (which had retroactively banned gay marriage in California). The term "culture war" is now being used by pundits. My own inner "causualty-of-war" feelings matched external, cultural and political, events playing out during the presidential campaign. 

  The answer? It came to me. Accept my role (no matter how challenging or confusing it may be) as a Cultural Creative (CC) in helping move us (in true "conveyor belt" fasion) along to a transrational understanding of spirituality. Christ and spirituality has not come to destroy reason, but to elevate it to a higher level of understanding ("Tree of Life"?) in which all the right-brainish, intuitive, pattern-sensing, functions of mind (traditionally called "spiritual") can compliment our modern rationality.  The neat thing about it is that the right brain (I am showing my cards here, as I am in the process of formulating ideas about "neurotheology") is that it specializes, among other things, in "gestalts," or whole images/patterns.

    Another understanding which gives me encouragement is that the base for sin theology is dying on the vine. Traditionals, according to Ray and Anderson are on the wane. CCs are on the rise. And Moderns are holding steady. David Platt's momentary regression to sin theology will soon enough be replaced by the new theological and sociological models offered by the CCs.

   One of my specific offerings for this new form of spirituality is my proposed list of "spiritual principles" which imply and help cue up, or activate, certain  mind functions of a spiritual nature.  My list came about while writing a book about a proposed optimal community. In my book Allsville Emerging: Creating and Experiencing a New Culture Together (www.allsvilleemerging.com :   http://sbpra.com/DarrellMoneyhon  ), the fictional founders of Allsville came up with 5 spiritual principles which could be used by anyone, regardless of religious belief system (including athiests and agnostics). My book is like one big thought experiment about a group of people enacting a model community which is able to integrate spirituality into its culture, and yet maintain a healthy separation of church and state. Allsville's "spirtitual principles" was their way of achieving what I call "spiritual consensus." Spiritual consensus allows us to get on the same page when it comes to enacting a more spiritual culture, community, and world). See this interview I gave with Sharon Wikoff for an informal overview of my book and the process of spiritual consensus, as I concieve of it: Creating Conscious Consensus with Darr...  . 

    I plan to transplant the book's idea of spiritual consensus into my actual local community in the Columbus, Ohio area. During the "Spiritual Consensus Project" I will be circulating a simple survey to various places of worship, and in some public places. The optional responses to the survey are as follows (paraphrased):  

a. I think this survey's proposed 5 spiritual principles are sound enough to work effectively as a starting point for a process of achieving spiritual consensus. We can see if these principles provide effective cues for spiritual growth in our own individual lives by using the Practice of Spiritual Principles Log. At the same time we can come together in small groups (face-to-face or online) and discuss the principles and the logs, in order refine them, if necessary, over time. 

b. I like the concept of spiritual consensus, but feel we should start from scratch. It would be best not to start off with the list of spiritual principles proposed in this survey. We need to start having dialogue to reach consensus points regarding spirituality. 

c. I don't think the notion of trying to achieve spiritual consensus between different religions and belief systems is worth pursuing. 

  The survey will hopefully lead to local focus groups or think tanks. From there we can see how all the different "faiths" in the area can "get on the same page" and work together in a variety of ways. 

   That's the plan, anyway. And by executing that plan I feel that I am being true to my "transfaith" calling.  Also, my little project seems to be consistent with my role as a CC. 

    Darrell Moneyhon, author of Allsville Emerging