Offensive Christianity

Hi, Greg, thank you for your frank and respectful response.  I also appreciate and respect the perspectives you and Cameron have been sharing, so I hope I haven't unintentionally given any impression otherwise.  I have been reading your posts with interest since I first joined Integral Life, and have also read your "bio," so I am aware you are both a Zen practitioner and a priest -- and have not mistaken you for a fundamentalist.

I understand what you are saying about Integralists often interpreting Christianity as some approximation of Vedanta or Buddhism, and Christ as a bodhisattva or 'nondual realizer' (rather than 'incarnation of God').  I believe I was one of the first people in this recent discussion to mention this, back in an early letter on Cameron's blog.  I appreciate why many Christians would not likely find this to be an acceptable interpretation.  I have found Cameron's posts to be interesting and refreshing because he is one of the first 'Integralists' I've heard who has spoken in a much more starkly 'Christian' language, sometimes repeating claims and statements that I could just as easily hear in a mainstream church -- and using 'Integral Theory' to back it up!  I actually have found that (from my pagan outsider's perspective) to be a bit amusing:  Integral being used to back up claims and perspectives that probably a great many 'spiritual progressives' have tried to leave far behind.

I do not personally accept or find believable the claim that Jesus is the unique incarnation of God, but I do recognize that this has long been one of the pillars of Christian faith.  In previous books, as I mentioned to Cameron (but as I expect he is already well aware), Wilber has dispatched with this claim by calling it a mistake, a mythological, concrete-literal interpretation of a transrational realization.  But if you get rid of this interpretation and regard Jesus as ultimately just one among many of the world's mystic realizers, what happens to Jesus' lordship?  Can a tradition still be called 'Christian' if that is discarded, or drastically reinterpreted?  I recognize these as legitimate questions, as I mentioned to Cameron, and I think it is valuable to explore other ways Christianity and Integral Theory might meet. 

In my recent letters to you and Cameron, I brought up the examples I did because, in my experience, they have been the most common forms in which appeals to 'foolishness' and 'offensiveness' have been made.  I am not saying they must be discarded by Integral or post-metaphysical Christians, but I do think it is important to clarify what exactly is being said, and what sort of 'move' is being made when they are appealed to.

You said:  My suspicion is that the Christian claim goes beyond the pre/trans fallacy and Integralists don’t see it because they are using the wrong tools, the wrong technology. To use an analogy and its only an analogy and one you know well, no one would know that microbes exists if all we had was our naked eyes to rely on. And there is no way of proving microbes exist if one refuses to look through a microscope at a prepared slide. With the same kind of proportionality the naked intellect can’t see the reality of the Christian claim. You’re well aware of the folk saying: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The analytical intellect by itself can only reduce the Christian claim to a set of propositional truths or metaphysical assertions, then rip them apart in a glorious display of cleverness. That illuminates the powers of the analytical intellect, but says little about the enduring claims of Christianity.

Would you be interested in saying more about how/why you think the Christian claim goes beyond the pre/trans fallacy, and what tool should be used if an interested inquirer would like to verify it for her- or himself?  In my case, I use more than the tools of analysis in my inquiry -- I've meditated for years, and in fact, first started meditating and praying in a Christian context, inspired by Thomas Merton, St. John of the Cross, and texts like The Cloud of Unknowing.  But as I said to Cameron, I remain doubtful that something like the 'eye of spirit' can directly disclose, in some unmediated and uninterpreted way, the type of knowledge that Christians would like it to (such as the historical-propositional claim that Jesus of Nazareth is the only son of God, etc).  I certainly don't rule out the possibility that there are perspectives I haven't considered yet, and I remain open to that, so I am curious to hear more about what you mean by the 'right tool,' and the Christian claim (of Jesus' sonship?) being beyond the pre/trans fallacy.

You wrote (concerning your experience after meditating on the crucifixion):  My acceptance or non-acceptance changed nothing. It was as if someone much greater than I understood the outrage and humiliation of unconditional love, and would not, could not turn away, and it was all okay. I haven’t the slightest idea how to categorize that “experience” on the Integral chart. I’m sure others are putting their little pins in the integral chart as they read this, but I don’t think it fit anywhere!

When you say 'it didn't fit,' are you thinking along the same lines as your suggestion that the Christian claim is beyond the pre/trans fallacy?  I wasn't 'putting pins' in an Integral chart as I was reading you, but your claim that your experience can't be located on the AQAL map raises concerns for me, from a post-metaphysical perspective.  Are you saying your experience transcended all possibility of interpretation and contextualization?

You wrote:  So, dear Bruce, my challenge is when are the Integralists going to meet the stark, bold proclamation of Christianity at its deepest and most liberating levels and on its own terms, instead of changing the venue every time and thus ducking the issue with sidelining dust ups? The burden of proof is not for Christianity to justify itself to Integral Theory. The burden of proof is for Integral Theory to account for the Christian claim. There are 2 billion Christians in the world, and growing. Some of those just by shear odds have to be at the highest mystical levels. If Integral theory is going to be relevant for the 21st century, it can’t ignore, dismiss or otherwise denigrate that large a portion of the global population. That’s an ad hominem argument, of course. But you get the point. The issue is: how does Integral theory account for the Christian claim that Jesus in his incarnation, death and resurrection is the Lord (no power is greater than the powerless Jesus) and Savior (he overcomes death by his death and resurrection)? Don’t side track the conversation. I’m not saying anyone has to believe this. I’m saying, to use an example from KW, account for this most basic of Christian facts in Integral theory, and check your account of it with Christian experts (the Christian mystics – living ones if you can find them - and their record will be a good place to start) to see if they agree with your account. So far the way it accounts for it, as far as I can tell, is to dismiss it, reduce it to some form of Buddhism or Vedanta or relegate it to a mythic mentality. I’m open to being educated in this.

As I said above, I respect your and Cameron's desire to articulate a Christian understanding that perhaps takes deep account of Integral insights, but in a way that remains true to Christianity as you understand it.  I think it is fair to say that, until recently, Christianity and its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, have definitely gotten a rather Buddhist/Hindu 'spin' in Integral literature and discussions.

But if Christians are going to make bold, offensive claims in the world community about the status of Jesus that have bearing on the relative status of all other traditions and teachers -- he is the Lord (of all humanity and creation); in his weakness, he is superior to all other supposed savior figures; he is the ultimate arbiter of human destiny; etc -- then it is fair to ask, I think, for Christians to justify such claims.  Because often the 'support' for such claims, in Christian apologetics, has been mythological and prerational or prescientific in nature (appeals to the Bible as the divinely revealed, infallible Word of God; appeals to the authority of tradition; etc).  Integral Theory challenges all traditions -- not just Christianity -- to face the challenges of modernity and postmodernity.  Simply standing aloof and writing them off (as examples of foolish worldly wisdom, intellectual pretension, etc) and not giving further answer or justification is one possible strategy, but I'm not sure it's an Integral one.

About asking the Christian experts, yes, I think that's a good idea; more of it needs to be done in the articulation of a vibrant Integral Christianity, I believe.  But to what extent are their 'discoveries,' their enactments and insights, valid for all human beings?  How do we begin to trace that out?

Best wishes,

Bruce

Why the effort to prove Christianity is superior?

Why the condescention?  " So, dear Bruce"  "Reduce it to some form of Buddhism or Vedanta"

From my perspective, anybody who has any spiritual training, who knows the methods, and yes, the techniques, to transcend and ascend into the subtler realms of existence...could give two hoots about proving something about religion.

I'll even go so far to say the in the higher stages, one doesn't feel the need to affiliate with a tradition at all. Study, learn, see where things fit, appreciate? Yes.  Affiliate? No.

Once you enter the skull cave...these matters don't matter.

At some point, one needs to get out of the intellect, out of the ideas and concepts, out of the books, and into the microcosm...and start exploring there.

--

"This too shall pass"

First, addressing Leo's question of the reason for working on an integral Christianity. Modern and postmodern thought are influencing a minority amongst Christians and they are demythologizing and reinterpreting the Christian tradition to various degrees in in a variety of ways. I am coming across more and more people going through such a process. Therefore, it may be the Christians who say that there is only one way to interpret the deep truth of Christianity that need to get over it. Not that I expect the majority to do so, but it's sad to see that even the more integral Christians here are not willing to budge on certain issues. This seems contrary to being integral, to having  a multi-perspective view. I'm not saying that one must get rid of all 'beliefs' because they don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. That's the sad assumption of the rationalists. They assume atheism is the scientific view, but atheism is quite often mythic as well. Just as one cannot prove the existence of God, one cannot disprove it either. Science makes conclusions based on proof,  but neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God can be proven; and this goes for all other beliefs. At the same time, I think a modern/postmodern Christianity may have a healthy amount of agnosticism. I believe it is possible to believe something with one's whole heart and yet recognize that they could be wrong, that their beliefs are but one possible interpretation. Christianity is a rich tradition which may be interpreted numerous ways. I think we confuse our spiritual experiences with our interpretive framework and forget that the same experience, the same scripture, the same ritual can be interpreted in a variety of ways. I'm repeating myself a bit, but I'm trying to clarify that I think there is a place for those who believe Jesus was uniquely human and divine and whose death had a metaphysical result on humanity as well as for those who see Jesus as an expression of what the Kingdom of God is, what it means for  humanity to respond (eros?)to the grace/call (agape) of God  (And yes, that mythic language is the only way I can articulate something deeper than the myth). Of course these aren't the only interpretations. That's the beauty of a diverse humanity encountering Spirit/G-d/Fill-in-the-Blank.

--

Broken and Divine