TheSpong-CupittDebate(2)
By Douglas LockhartToday,thepublicreputationofChristianethicshascrashed,amidstfartoomuch evidenceofgreatunhappinessandtrulymalignanthumanrelationswithinthe churches.Therehasbeentoomuchchildabuse,rampantmisogynyand homophobia,andreflexfearandhostilitytowardsnewtechnicalandscientific developments,especiallyinmedicineandgenetics.Insomeplacestherehas beentoomuchcollusionwithnationalism.Itisnotsurprisingthatpublicbodies arenolongerquitesokeentohavechurchrepresentativesonethicscommittees.
DonCupittReformingChristianityp.4.
TheissuehereliesinbreakingoutofthetraditionaltheisticdefinitionofGod, whichblocksforsomanythemeaningofJesus.Itisthefullyhumanonewho makestheholyvisible,thefullyconsciousonewhoenablesustoseethatthe humanandthedivineareone,andthefullyaliveonewhoenablesustoseethat deathisultimatelyadimensionoflifethroughwhichwejourneyinto timelessness.
JohnShelbySpong EternalLife:ANewVisionp.xviii.TheEndofMonotheism?
TheabovequotefromDonCupitt's2001book,ReformingChristianity ,helpssets thepaceforwhatweareabouttoconsider,forifanyonehastakenChristianityto taskforitsmanymisdemeanors,itisCupitt,andrightlyso.SoalsoBishopSpong. HetoohaslambastedChristianityinbookafterbook,althoughwithatangentially differentpurposeinmind.WhichtakesusbacktoTheSpong-CupittDebatePart One where I compared their separate philosophies and concluded that their contributions reflected the intellectual/emotional struggle detectable among a widearcoftheologiansandNewTestamentscholars.WhenIsay"emotional"I am of course not referring to emotionalism, but to the evaluative-feeling dimension of human nature; an observable adjunct of Spong's charismatically articulatedvisionthatisnotstronglyrepresentedbyCupitt.Cupitt'sreforming vision,althoughsosimilarinmanywaystoSpong's,isacool,logicallydirected vision driven by a Pinkeresque acceptance of neuroscience's dictates, Spong's,
althoughnolessintellectual,acapturingofthehumanspirit'smoreintangible qualities-qualitieshenowidentifiesashavingamysticalundertow.ForCupitt, mysticisminanyformisareturntoirrationalism;forSpong,mysticismrepresents awayoutofChristianity'spresentdilemma,thedilemmaofitnolongermaking sense,eventoChristians-thoughtfulChristians,thatis.1
Asthesupra-mundaneGodofChristianitybegantoflickerandfade,so alsodidold-fashionedChristianity;itnolongerhadtheinfusionsofraw,reactive emotionalenergynecessaryforitsongoingsurvival.Theworldhadundergone almostunimaginablechangeinarelativelyshortperiodoftime,andtheChurch, Catholic and Protestant, had failed to properly evaluate and respond to those changes. Adjustment in terms of its core beliefs were seen as weakness, accommodationoftheworld'sspirituallycorrosiveintellectualvisionathreatto everythingitstoodfor.Sowhattodo?Formanyinthehierarchytheanswerwas simple:ignorewhatwashappeningandcarryonasusual.Forothersitwasa matterofintensifyingbeliefintheOld,OldStory:astandhadtobetakeninthe face of Godless, atheistic scientists and similarly oriented philosophers. Two thousandyearsofChristianteachingshouldnotbethrownawayonthebasisofit not measuring up to secular society's spiritually bankrupt vision of reality. Christianrealitywasaltogetherdifferentfromsecularreality;itwasarevelation sent from God, and as such could not be contradicted whatever science or philosophymighthavetosayabouttheworldandhowitworked.Orhowthe mindworked.Orhowmythologyworked.Orsociety.Christiancongregationsin theWestwerenotsosure.Aftersomedecadesofargumentandconfusionthey respondedwiththeirfeet,eachdecadeseeing aquarterofwhatwasleftmelt away,eachgenerationhalfofwhatwasleftdisappear.2Aplausible,rationalcase for the truth of Christian doctrines had failed to materialise:3 the Christian metaphysichadcollapsedinonitselflikeanimplodingstar.
Cupitt's and Spong's confronting evaluations of conventional Chritianity are well known to those interested in religious matters, not so well known, perhaps, those of the late Alan Watts, one time priest of the Anglican CommunionandEpiscopalChaplainatNorthwesternUniversityinthemid-forties.
A radical thinker about Christianity long before radical thinking became fashionable,WattsrecognisedChristianity'simpoverishedstateandtriedtodo somethingaboutit.Butmoreaboutthatinamoment.Whatinterestsmeabout the whole situation is that Spong has never entirely given up on Christianity, whereas Cupitt seems to have done so in spite of claiming that he still cares aboutthecontinuationoftheChristiantradition.4InCupittlanguagethatmeans "develop[ing]anewformofreligiouslifethatwillbegenuinelytruthful,livable andproductive",5anditdoesnotmatterwhetherthisnewformofChristianity calls itself "Christian" or not. The old brand name is tarnished almost beyond repair,hetellsus,particularlyforthosetryingtotradeunderit.Forreasonsof personalfeeling,however,hewouldprefertoretainit.6 Spong,too.Everything he says points to a deep and abiding love of the Christian tradition. But reformationisonhismind,andaradicalreformationatthat.Andnotjustinthe senseofthinkingradicalthoughtsaboutChristianity;he'sdonethat,andismore orlessfinishedwithitasatask.No,he'smoreconcernedwithadimensionof experiencebeyondthoughtandlanguage,namely,thatof"Being".Spongwants to"Be"Sponginthedeepestpossibleway,andthathasmeantdippingintohis ownsensibilitiesbeyondthelimitationsoflanguage.Todoso,however,hehas hadto"walkthroughhisfaithtradition",notjustabandonitassomanyhave done.7Cupitthasdonemuchthesamething,butwithaquitedifferentresult.His emphasis has been on thought and language as the ultimate state of being Cupitt;whichmakesCupittandeverythinghestandsforanadjunctoflanguage and naught else. But that's not quite right; he also recognises the validity of personalfeeling.
AlanWattsheldbothamaster'sdegreeintheologyandadoctorateof divinity,butwasbestknownasaninterpreterofZenBuddhism,andofIndianand Chinesephilosophyingeneral.SosaysthecoverblurbforhisbookBeholdthe Spirit, a study in "the necessity of mystical religion"8 published in 1947.
Recognised as one of the most original and "unrutted" philosophers of the
century, he authored eighteen books on the philosophy and psychology of religion,andwasaguestlectureratmostoftheprincipleuniversitiesinAmerica. Healsocompletedatwo-yearresearchfellowshipintheDepartmentofSocial RelationsatHarvard,andtraveledextensivelyinbothEuropeandtheFarEast. Seeninthislight,Wattsis anearly,highlyeducated thinkersimilarinstyleto CupittandSpongwhosefundamentalintentionwastoredirectChristianityback toitsmysticalroots:aninsightnowsharedbyBishopSpong,butflatlyrejectedby DonCupitt.InhisprefacetoaneweditionofBeholdtheSpiritpublishedin1971 -twenty-fiveyearsafteritsinitialrelease-Wattsevaluatedhisownearlythinking on Christianity's dilemmas and decided, that as an experiment, it still had validity.9CatholicandProtestanttheologiansmightfindhisthoughtsuseful,he tellsus,butonlyiftheyhadmindsopenenoughtounderstandthatnon-verbal spiritualexperienceswere possible,andthattheywerepreferabletodoctrines and precepts delivered didactically. Having rationalised the Mass into the vernacular,Catholicismhad"madetheliturgyanoccasionforfillingone'shead withthoughts,aspirations,considerationsandresolutions,sothatit[was]almost impossible to use the Mass as a support for pure contemplation, free from discursivechatterintheskull."10Freefromdiscursivechatterintheskull?Watts weighsintohissubjectandshowshimselftobemorethanmerelyfamiliarwith contemplation as a "subject"; he is also schooled in its untoward subjective/objectivedemandstotheextentthatexperiencesofprofound,outeredge contemplative/meditative activity can, in spite of Cupitt's denials, be correlated across cultures and religious traditions. Not in identical terms of course; such experiences transcend the visual/emotional projections of the religiouslyneedy.Atsomedecisivepointofprofoundinnerexperienceeverything settlestowards,well,somethingaltogetherdifferent.
AlanWattspublishedTheJoyousCosmology:AdventuresintheChemistry ofConsciousnessin1965,abookdramaticallydifferentfromBeholdtheSpiritin thatitdealswithexpansionsofconsciousnessviaLSD,mescalineandpsilocybin. Thislittlebookofahundredpagesisarecordoftheauthor'sownexperiments, experiences of heightened consciousness ranging from "aesthetic insights into
nature to a philosophical view of existence as a comedy at once diabolicand divine,resolvingitselfinto'acosmologynotonlyunifiedbutalsojoyous.'"11In BeholdtheSpirit ,WattssoundslikeSpongandCupittrolledintooneinthatheis outlining an extensive reprogramming of Christianity's tenets of belief in alignment with rational thinking and mystical insight. But it is mysticismhe is mostlyinterestedin,nottothedetrimentofrationalthinking,butasthatwhich allows the mind to soar creatively beyond the natural limitations of rational thought."Mysticism",hetellsus,"isnotacollectivetermforsuchspookeriesas levitation,astrology,telekinesis,andprojectionoftheastralbody.Theologians can nolongerdismissor distortthemysticalteachingsof eitherEast orWest withoutrevealingplainlackofscholarship."12Fieldtheory,ecologicaldynamics andthetransactionalnatureofperceptiontellsusthatwearenotindependent observersinan"alienandrigidlymechanicalworldofseparateobjects."13The so-calledrationalbeliefthathumanbeingsarean"island-egoinahostile,stupid orindifferentuniverseseemsmoreofadangeroushallucination".14Whichisan interesting perspective on our present highly rational view of self, other and world-perhapsrationalhallucinationwouldbeabetterdescription.
BishopSpong,inturn,sumsupthemystic'suniqueviewofrealityrather well when he says, "Mystics appear to be those strange people in whom all boundarieshavebeenremoved."15Godceases,inotherwords,tobethesupramundaneGodoftheChristianimagination;heturnsinsteadintoanunbounded presence,ortimelessreality,anEternalNowwhichvanquishesandannulsthe needforasupernatural,externaldeity.16Wehavecome,Spongsuggests,toa point in our understanding of reality where the old conception of deity is a violationofourexpandingconsciousnessofhumanlife.17 Thatiscertainlysoin relationtosociety'sintellectualrejectionofallsupernaturalisms,butitisnottrue in relation to Christianity's general theological stance: the Church in its many incarnationscontinuestoholdandadvocatetheOldTestament'sconceptionof
deityinspiteofNewTestamentattemptstomodifythatdeity'stemperament.It's nowallabout"love",we'retold,butwhenallissaidanddoneloveseemstobe thinontheground.Cupitt sumsupthesituationwithcharacteristicfrankness. "[Thereis]toomuchevidenceofgreatunhappinessandtrulymalignanthuman relationswithinthechurches...toomuchchildabuse,rampantmisogynyand homophobia, and [too much] hostility towards new technical and scientific development,especiallyinmedicineandgenetics."Spong'sresponseistotarget Godhimself:"thetraditionaltheisticdefinitionofGod"hastobechallenged,he tells us.18 I agree wholeheartedly; the much loved tyrant God of Abraham's childrenisineffectdirectlyresponsibleforthepresentdebaclefacingbothWest andEast,thenarcoticthreateningusreligious,justasMarxsuggested.Butthat should not be taken too literally; religious sensibility is not all of the supramundaneGod'smaking-there'smoretoitthanthat.
Thenew,radicalwayofcomprehendingwhatGodis,isasanexperience. WhatthatmightmeanisclearlyarticulatedbySpongwhenhesays"Iexperience GodunderthecategorythatIcall'being'.IfGodisthe'GroundofAllBeing,'the phraseIattributeprincipallytomyshapingtheologicalthinkerPaulTillich,then my'being'notonlyispartofbutparticipatesinthe'being'ofGod."19Radical thinking, for some, and he isn't finished. This God then becomes "the depth dimension of being itself".20 In such a moment God ceases to be a religious concept and we move beyond religion.21 These are daring words; they will challengemany.ButIdetectaflawinSpong'sadventurousreasoning,forthe term"God"isstilloperative,andwhatevermeaningyousubscribetoitthatterm remainsareligiousconceptladenwithsupra-mundanebaggage.Whichofcourse setsupadichotomoussituationinthemindwherewhatisbeingtranscendedis beingusedtodescribeandunderpintheactoftranscendenceitself. Ifwehave trulymovedbeyondmundanereligionandtheconceptofGod,thenitissurely impermissibletobringGodbackintotheconversationinthismanner. Tomyway ofthinking,makingGodtheGroundofAllBeingisaformoffuzzylogicwhereby God,whateverthedefinitionoffered,iskeptintheequationbecausetonotdoso
is too disturbing for the thinker to contemplate. I fully appreciate Spong's dilemmainthisregard,butIcannotgoalongwiththereasoningunderoffer. Movingthedecimalpointoneplaceisinsufficient;muchbettertoscraptheword "God"altogetherandreplaceitwiththeneutralterm"being".SneakingGodback into the picture imprisons us, yet again, in the Holy Bastille of His apparently inescapable clutches. Why not let "being" speak for itself out of the human condition,notasGodinsomenew,sophisticatedguise,butastheexperienceable depthdimensionofbeingalludedtobySponghimself.Bysuchameanswould theconfusionbetween"being"and"abeing"beovercome.Inotherwords,let "being",bewithoutinterference.
TheMediumReallyistheMessage
Theaboveobservationspresentuswithaproblemthathastobesolved,andwith afurtherraftofproblemsthathavetobesolvedifwewanttoprogresstowards somekindofsensibleresolutioninrelationto"being"and"beings".Ofthemany thinkersandresearcherstryingtonutoutanewdirectionforChristianity(orin philosophyforthatmatter),JohnShelbySponghas,Ibelieve,properlyidentified our understanding of "being" in terms of depth, or our lack of depth, as the criticalissue.Butassuggested,thereisaglitchinSpong'sthinkingthatdamages hispremiseevenasitforms.Butnotaltogether,forthatpremisealsocontains,by default,shadowyelementsofhumanism'sthreesuccessivedevelopmentalstages, thethirdofwhichpresentsuswiththeopportunitytorecogniseandrectifypast mistakes. First-wave humanism was after all nominally Christian; it only later turnedintosecond-wavesecularhumanism'srejectionofChristianity.Whichdoes notmeanthatthird-wavehumanismisinsomesensefirst-wavehumanismabout to reclaim its old territory; it means that a whole new kind of humanism is forming capable of transcending both its religious and secular origins. In this sensewearenotjourneyingbackintoGodbyamoresophisticatedroute;weare in fact journeying, finally and irrevocably, out of God and into our own unfathomablenaturesasbeingintermsofGround.Spongalmostsaysasmuch whenhedescribesouroldconceptionofdeityasaviolationofourexpanding
consciousnessofhumanlife,22(myitalics)butwhenallissaidanddonewhat we'releftwithisanintellectualconceptionofbeing.TheexperientialisSpong's concern,thereisnodoubtingthat,butitisaconcernworkedpredominatelyat the intellectual level. He has however come to an appreciation of mysticism's worthas"themeansthroughwhichtheessenceofyesterday'sreligioncanbe transformedintotomorrow'sspiritualunderstanding."23
DonCupitt'sapproachtoGodisaltogetherdifferentfromSpong's;heisall forditchingGodandgettingonwiththebusinessoflife,andliving.Inhisspiritual manualunderstandingisreachedwhenweacceptthatbeinginexistencehasno meaninginitself.Talkof"being"leavesCupittstonecold;heisonlyinterestedin beings.Beingisnomorethan"anunthinkableunthingpriortolanguage-anonword."24 Outside of language being has no existence. Some thinkers may considerbeingthemostimportantquestioninphilosophy,butthatcanbeput downtofearinrelationto"theradicallyoutsidelesscontingencyandtransience ofallexistence."25Existenceis"irremediablegroundlessnessandinsecurity.Our wholeexistenceisabsurd,gratuitous,detrop."26 Whichleavesusflailingina wilderness of deteriorating social values, egotistical inflation and withering existential hopes. The best we can expect from Cupitt's vision is an aesthetic cuddlefromnatureortheconsolationofart,ifwe'relucky.
NotsowithSpong,orAlanWatts.Theirvisionshort-circuitsusoutofthis frameofmindandintoasenseofthingsaltogetherdifferent;andthatinspiteof WattsconcludinginTheJoyousCosmologythat"the'knower'isnodifferentfrom thesensationofthe'known',whethertheknownbe'external'objectsor'internal' thoughtsandmemories."27Cupittwouldnotdisagreewiththat;itfitsperfectly into his neuroscientific overview of the self being composed of perceptions, rather than having perceptions. And Watts seems to compound the problem furtherbyadding:"Inthiswayitappearsthatinsteadofknowersandknowns therearesimplyknowings,andinsteadofdoersanddeedssimplydoings.'"
28 I
canalmosthearCupittapplauding;it'swhathe'sbeentryingtotellusallalong: we'renotindividualselves,we'rejustbundlesofperceptionsheldtogetherbythe illusionofbeingindividualselves.Problemis,Wattsisn'tdescribingtheresultof scientifically arrived at ideas; he is describing what he considers to be transcendent ideas experienced in altered states of consciousness. So the questionmustbe:Inwhatdothesetwovisionsdiffer?Answer:theydon't.The onlydifferenceisthemediumthroughwhichtheyhavetravelled-themedium,in moresensesthanone,reallyisthemessage.Filtersuchinformationthroughthe rational, language-bound ego, and you end up with Cupitt's vision. Filter it throughtheexpansive,non-linguisticstatesexperiencedbyproficientmeditators, or through the chemically enhanced states of consciousness experienced by serious experimenters, and you end up with Watts' vision. Or with a radically adjustedintellectualvisionsuchasthatofferedbySpongashestepsoutofhis faithtraditiontowardstheexit.29Confidentinhispostmodernism,Cupittspeaks ofthe"irremediablegroundlessnessandinsecurity"oflife;Watts,confidentinhis cosmicdeviousness,ofa"rapaciousandall-embracingcosmicselfishness[that] turnsouttobeadisguisefortheunmotivatedplay oflove."30 Unmotivated love?Whatmightthatbe,Iwonder?IsitagainGodbyanothername;orisitin somedifficulttodefinesenseourselvesreleasedfromfear?Cupittisnotwrong aboutourfear,it'srealenough,butonlyinthesenseofitbeingego-driven.Itis ourlimitedapprehensionofrealitythat'stheproblem,notrealityitself.Takethe ego'sblinkersoffandeverythingfallsintoawholly(holy?)newconfiguration.
TheDeath(almost)ofGod
LloydGeeringis/wasEmeritusProfessorofReligiousStudiesatVictoriaUniversity, Wellington,NewZealand.HeisalsoaFellowoftheWestarInstituteintheUS,an institutededicatedtothetaskofspreadingreligiousliteracy.DonCupittandJohn Shelby Spong are also Fellows of Westar, their contribution to the subject of religiousliteracybeingamongstthemostchallengingtheInstitutehastooffer. ChallengingtooforthoseinvolvedintheInstitute'sresearchprograms;theyhave
todobattlewiththeirpeerstomaketheirresearchfindingsstick.Whichresultsof course in high calibre books and academic papers. Of such calibre are Lloyd Geering'spublishedworksandpresentations,his2002bookChristianityWithout Godbeingparticularlyarresting.NolessarrestingistheForwardpennedbythe late Robert W. Funk, Director of Westar at that time. Christians (thoughtful Christiansthatis)arenolongertheists,hetellsus,theyhavebecomea-theist, which, when translated, means that they "no longer believe in a personal, objective,thinkingGod"outthere"somewhere.ThetheisticGodhasnotsurvived theacidsofmodernity."Thesearestrongwords,buttheyareonlytrueinrelation tothosewhohavedonebattlewiththeBible'ssupra-mundaneGodandemerged victorious. Victorious? In the sense of having finally shrugged off that God's overbearingpresenceandinfluence.DonCupitthasquiteobviouslymanagedto dothis,ashasBishopSpong,buttheoutcomeoftheirhavingaccomplishedthis ultra difficult and demanding task has not been at all thesame. One thing is certain,however:GodinthetraditionalsenseofGod,isdeadforbothmen.
Inhisinimitablylucidstyle,LloydGeeringtrackshowbeliefinGodarose and developed in ChristianityWithoutGod , a book of summerisations that managesto conveyhugelycomplex,interwovenslicesofreligiousandsecular history in abbreviated form. In such a manner does Geering approach the questionofGod'sexistence,aquestionhebreaksdownintofourbasicelements, orarguments:theCosmological,theTeleological,theMoralandtheOntological. TheCosmologicalArgumentisbasedontheworld'sexistenceandhowitcame intoexistence,theTeleologicalonobservationsofwhatisbelievedtobeorder anddesignintheuniverse,theMoralonthesenseofmoralobligationhuman beingsfeeltowardsoneanother,andtheOntologicalontheconceptofGod's existenceonlybeingconceivablebecausesuchaGodexistedinthefirstplace.All ofthesearesaidtohavebeenbasedontheoriginalmythologicalnotionofthe "gods",polytheism'sancient,imaginativeattempttoexplainandcontrolnatural phenomena. Then came a change during which the "gods" collapsed into a conceptionofthesingular"god"ofJewishreligioustradition.Fine,we'vemade progress,butwhatcomesnextisdifficultfortheiststotakeonboard,forthe conceptofGodasfoundinlaterChristianmonotheismisdescribedbyGeeringas
"a simple refinement of what originated there",31 the doctrine of divine revelationhavinghiddenthisfactuntilthewholeideaofrevelationcameunder scrutiny in our own time. Suddenly, embarrassingly, "the essential continuity betweenthegodsandGodwasrediscovered",32thetheistconceptionofGod showntobeahumancreationnodifferentfromthatofthegods.Wehumans hadnotonlycreatedthegods,wehadalsocreatedGod,andjustasthegodshad diedandfadedaway,soalsowastheGodoftheismnowdying,andfading.
Thisisaclean,neatevaluationofthegods,ofGod,andofthetransition periodwearenowin,anditproceedstoanalysewithprecisionthehypothetical presenceofGodasitwastransposedintoanotherexplanatorykeybythinkers suchasPaulTillichandBishopSpong.Godisdeadforsomepeople,butdead onlyinvaryingdegreesforothers.33Forthoseotherstheword"God"hasceased tomeanwhatitmeantinthepast,butremainsoperativeinaradicallynewway, PaulTillich'screativetheologysaidtobeofthisilk.InGeeringterms,Tillich'sGod becameasymbolictermfor"ultimateconcerns",Godhimselfperceivedasthe ultimate concern of all human beings.34 God was dead, but in some curious metaphoricallysensehewasstillalive.QuotingwhathetermsDonCupitt's"nonrealist" view of God (God as no more than the mythical embodiment of our spiritualconcerns),GeeringneverthelessplacesTillichinthe"realist"camp(God imaginedasanobjectivebeing)becauseofhisreluctanceto"surrenderthelast elementofobjectivityintheconceptofGod."35Tillichwasn'tarealist,butneither washefullyanon-realist; hewasperhapshedginghisbetsbecausehecould sensewherenon-realismmightendup.HencehistalkoftheGodbeyondGod,a descriptionderivedfromMeisterEckhartandremarkedonbyGeering.Spong's sophisticated stance on this issue is similar to that of Tillich's, and for good reason;Ithinkhetoocanfeelthecoldbreathofpostmodernityonhisneck.Not soDonCupitttowhomtheissueisasdeadasthesupra-mundaneGodkilledoff bynon-realism.Whichleavesuswithwhat?Well,tomyminditleavesuswithtwo problems,notone:theproblemofCupitt'sultra-rationalisticcertainty,andthe
problemofSpong'ssometimesquirkycharismaticambiguity.Oneleavesuswith onlythefrailhumanegotofallbackon,theotherwithasymbolic,metaphorical formulaforGodeverindangeroftopplingbackintoasubtleliteralism.Thatdoes notseemtobeaproblemforSpong,hehandlesitdexterously,butitiscertainly aproblemforCupittandforthoseofsimilarpersuasion.
AndforthosewhorespondtoSpong'smessage;theyperhapssensethat somethingimportantisbeingsafeguardedwithoutknowingexactlywhat.Sothe questionhastobethis:isthere,potentially,athirdpositionthatcanbetakenup, apositionthatgetsthebestoutofbothoftheseapproacheswithoutannulling either?Ithinkthereis,andIthinkithastodowithovercomingourculturally inbuiltfearofpsyche,afearnurturedbyChristianityinspiteofappearingtodo theopposite.Indeed,afearconsciouslydevelopedbyChristianityinaccordance withitsdoctrinallyexternalisedGodasabeing"outthere"somewhere,heavenas "up there" somewhere, and hell as "down there" somewhere, notions wholly discarded by some, but not by all. Or simply dorment in the unthinking, unconcernedmind.Factis,psychicdepthwasswappedearlyonforamagical, supernatural conception of reality where psyche was perceived as harbouring infernalforces.AshieldofBiblicaltextsandimageshadtobeplacedbetweenthe individualandhis/herdepths,prayersoffixedcontentusedtoensureagainstthe possibilityofpsychicfree-fallintothemind'sabyss.ArmedwithGodlythoughts, withversesofScriptureandholyimages,thespiritualaspirant'segoremained firmly lodged at the conscious level of the psychic spectrum, psyche's more profoundofferingscategorisedasinherentlysubversive.InthisschemeGodwas apuppetmastercapableofsuspendingthelawsofnaturetoaccommodatethe needsofhissupra-mundaneson'sdevotees,supplicatoryprayersthemeansby whichthisGod'smindcouldbeinfluenced,orchanged.TheorthodoxChristian juggernautwasonitsway,buttowhere,exactly?Godas"being"wasoperativeas aconcept,butitwasacrassliteralisationofbeing'smoreprofoundmeaning,a steppingdownof"being"to"abeing"thatwouldcausehistoricalhavocasthe centuriesrolledintowardsourown.
FriedrichNietzscheannouncedthe"deathofGod"inthelatenineteenth century, addingthatweourselveshadkilledhim.Whichwasaniceplayonwhat
was supposed to have happened in the first century when human beings unwittingly killed God's son, that theologically incomprehensible projection of himselfintotheworldinhumanform.Nietzschewassmart;smarterthatmost orthodoxtheologiansthenornow.Whathehadrealisedwasthatthedeathof Godinhisowncenturywasduetosheerneglect,nottoanyconsciousactbythe general public. The God of theism had simply become unbelievable36 and dropped out of most people's perception of reality. And that, basically, is the meaning ofdeathfor mostofus:when someonedropspredominatelyoutof consciousawareness,thenthatpersonistoallintentandpurposedead,thatis, finishedwithasausefulmemorywhetheractuallydeadornot. Inthissense, theism'sGodisallbutdead;heisaflickeringmemoryinthepublicmindthathas allbutlostitspowerofpresenceandinfluence.Wearemostlyfreeofhim,mostly capableoflivingwithoutreferencetohim,mostlyabletoputupwithlifeand livingminusanyneedtoaddresshim.Wemayaddresshimregularlythrough profanities,butthatinitselfconfirmshowwehavebecomedistancedfromany priorneedforGod,ifindeedsuchaneedeverexisted.
Formany,ifnotmostyoungpeopletoday,needforGodhasneverbeen experiencedatall.Andthereinliesaproblem,forifsenseofbeingeveninthe senseofGod as akind ofultimatebeinghasn'tregisteredonthe mind, then "being"inthedeeper,moreprofoundsenseofourownlivingpresenceinthe world may go unnoticed. By that I do not mean our physical presence in the world,Imeansenseofourselvesasalivingpresenceoverandaboveourphysical presencewhich,whenencountered,dramaticallychangesourperceptionofself, other and world. Hence society's need of religion, not merely in terms of a regulating moral force, which it no longer is, but as a possible, although uncertain,conduitintoanexperienceofself-transcendence.Self-transcendencein thissensehasnothingwhatsoevertodowithlosingoneselfinGod,ithastodo withfindingoneselfthroughtheprocessofwakingupintoourownexistence. Notjustintellectually,butexperientiallyinrelation,say,toournotexistingdueto death.Thecluetoourexistinginrealtermsliesinthatuntowarddirection,for once appreciate what to not exist means and something of one's depth dimensionwillform,andinform.
DonCupittthinksotherwise.In TheRevelationofBeinghetellsusthat thereis"nonon-temporalBeing.Everythingcomestobe,andisapprehendedor understoodbitbybit,intime...Everythingisbe(com)ing,everythingissubjectto changesandchances,andeverything-truthsandvalues,particlesandgalaxieshasa finitelife-span.. .Everythingison theskids, andnothingiswholly and securelyself-present."37Intermsofconsciousness,egoandlanguage,Cupittis absolutelycorrectinhisreadingofreality;thereisnodoubtingthateverythingis abe(com)ingjustashesays.Intermsofegoconsciousnessbroughttoastand stillwithinpsyche,however,heisnotcorrect;infacthecouldnotbefurtherfrom thetruth.Truth?Not"truth"asitisgenerallyconceived,thekindoftruththat comesladenwithconsciousvalues;morethekindoftruthhintedatbyHeidegger intermsofanexperientialdimensionrelatedtoprimordialthinking.Primordial thinkingisnotlikeordinarythinking;itisnotknowingthingsbitbybit;itisan embracingofeverythingsimultaneously .Beingisnotthenrealisedasmybeing;it isrealisedincoincidencewiththebeingofallthings.Itis,inotherwords,aform ofexperiencingthatcancelsoutthegapbetweenperceivedobjectsandleavesus with a beyond differentiation appreciation of reality. Such a realisation shortcircuitsegooutofitscomfortzoneofthisandthatintoanapprehensionofthis asthat. And it is the same for everyone who crosses this perceptual frontier: nationality, culture or language cannot change this experience into anything otherthatwhatitisinitself,andwhatitisinitselfisabluntdenialofChristianity's basicpremiseofsinandsalvation.Wearenotinbondagetosinorinneedofa Messiahtofreeusfromthelimitationsofournatures;weareinbondagetoa formofperceptionthatholdsushostagetotheutilitarianbeliefthatwhatwesee isallthereis.Itmayappeartobeso,butsoalsodidthesun'scirclingoftheearth atonetime.QuantumphysicshaslongsincesupersededtheNewtonian,push andshovemodeloftheuniverse,butthatissomethingnotyetproperlytakenon boardbymanypostmodernphilosophersandpsychologists.Newton'smodelstill works, but only at the surface of everyday materiality; something altogether different is going on at the quantum level, and that difference is detectable experientiallyatthedeeperlevelsofpsyche.
Christianbeliefisakindofmaterialism,aconceptionofspiritualrealitydumbed down into a form of hard knowledge grounded in the vicissitudes of history. BelievingChristianshavecometoviewhistoryastheconduitusedbyGodto inserthis wishes intothe world,andindoing sotheyhave set upa situation wherethewholeofhistoryisopentotheiruniqueinterpretationofevents.By such means the Christian vision became materially evident and provable, its claims and ambitions terrestrially anchored and materially substantial. And supernatural,ofcourse.Therewasnoavoidingthesupernaturalelementwhen thatconceptionofthingsgotgoing.Whichisofcourseacontradictioninterms givenwhatwenowknowaboutthenatureofmaterialreality.Facedwiththis obviouscontradiction,itisatfirstinconceivablethatChristianitycanundothe epistemologicalknotithastiedwithoutunravellingthe"faith"atitsexistential core.ForoncedenyChristianityitshistoricalcredentials,andyoudenyittheright toexist.No,that'snotright.Thatoughttoread:andyoudenyittherighttoexist initspresentform.Areprieveispossible,butasbothCupittandSpongarewell aware,ittakescourageandefforttosetthatreprieveinmotion.
Ifanabilitytochangeone'smindistheprerequisiteforchangeonany otherlevel,thenDonCupittfillstheroleadmirably.Infacthehimselfremarkson thischaracteristicwhenhesays"Mycriticsseizedonthis.'Thereisnoreasonatall whyweshouldtakeDonCupitt'sideasseriously',theysaid:'Hekeepschanging themallthetime'."38Cupitt'scriticswerenotwrong;hehadmovedfrombeinga realisttothatofanon-realist,frombeinganon-realisttothatofananti-realist, postmodernist, and ended up in what he describes as the camp of creative expressionism/aestheticism. Rejecting the realist need for a system of fixed conclusions,dogmaticclosureandtimelessnessinrelationtotruthsperceivedas unchanging,hehadaccusedhiscriticsofnotthinkingatall,andwithaflourish reducedbeingtoatemporal,ever-changingrestlessnessuponwhichnogreat truthcouldbefounded.39Onlyunsystematictruthfulnesswaspossible,thekind oftruthsoughtforbythephilosopherKierkagaard.Inaword,truthfulnessinvia ,
or"ontheway",atherapeuticandaesthetictruththatliberatesus"tobecreative andproductive."40
Accusedofbeinganatheistbecauseofhistemporalisingofbeing,hethen admits to using the "craftily-chosen vocabulary" of the German philosopher MartinHeidegger,andwiththatsaidplacesthequestionofbeinginadifferent interpretive box. Being is now situated somewhere between theism and Buddhism, between East and West, between Eternal being and Absolute Nothingness. Suddenly, unexpectedly, being is reintroduced as the religion of being,41(somethinghethinksHeideggersteeredawayfrom)achangeofheart he attributes to a monkish, minimalist streak42 that his subtracting nature delightsin.Somepeopleareadders;heisasubtractor,andthemoresubtraction thebetter.AndsoitcanbesaidthatGodis"nothing",that"nothing"iseternal, andthattheexperienceofGodisindistinguishablefromtheblissfulvoidtalked of in Buddhism. Suspension in an Empty Infinite, in the five-fold nothingness spokenofbySt.JohnoftheCrossispreferabletothecomplexitiesofabelief systemthatonecannotletgoof.Thelessthereisofbelief,andofoneself,the happieroneis.
On one level I have no problem with Cupitt's deeply considered conclusions, but on another I cannot but reject his assumption that what Buddhismdescribesasthe"Void",andwhatStJohnoftheCrossdescribesasa "five-foldnothingness",areidenticalin meaningto hisownprivatenotionsof "nothing" asemptiness . The word "empty" remains the same, but in terms of whatisbeingdescribedtheyareinfactradicallydifferentinrelationtomysticism and to the self. But Cupitt is already on to the possibility of descriptive inadequacy,forinafollow-upstatementhesaysthathe"cannotclaimtobeany sortofexpertupon[his]ownideas."43Whynot?Becausehehadcometothem outof"violentelationanddistress",andcannotevenbesurethatheunderstands themhimself.Hesuspectsheisontherighttrack,butisnotentirelysurewhy,or how. His tendency to subtract rather than add has led him to a position "somewherebetweenpragmatismandBuddhism",astancebasedonarigorous
strippingawayofeverythingintellectuallysuperfluous.44Ifyouwanttoimprove thelookofasystemofideas,hetellsus,thenbettertopurgeandpurifyitofall embellishment.45That,inanutshell,ismysticismproper.Betterthevianegativa where everything falls away into nothingness, than the viaaffirmativawhere imagesseemtoconfirmone'sbeliefinthis,that,orthenextthing.46 Question is,towhatexactlyisCupittreferringwhenhespeaksofthevianegativaandthe viaaffirmativa?Heobviouslyunderstandsimage-projectionintheasceticsense, butheseemsnottohavegraspedthatmysticalexperienceinthevianegativa sensehasnothingwhatsoevertodowitheither thebottomfallingoutofthe ego'scapacitytokeepitselfpsychologicallyintact,or,similarly,theego'sdecision to apply an intellectual scalpel to what it considers to be intellectually superfluous.Vianegativaexperienceisneitherexistentialangstnorintellectual rigour; it is the cessation of ego involvement on all levels of perception/conception.Vianegativaisnotegodoinganything;itisegofrozen into perceptual and conceptual immobility staring into the depths of its own unfathomablenature.
Arthur Koestler misinterpreted this state of mind as "controlled annihilation", andCupittisnotfarbehindwhenheconceivesthevianegativa space to be no more than negative nothingness. So when he says "In nothingness,we'venothingtofear.WhenIaminwardlycoolestandemptiest,I amhappiest.Thelessthebetter",heisinfactmissingthepointofwhathasbeen writtenaboutthevianegativastatebythosewhohaveexperiencedit.Andto later suggest that Heidegger's vocabulary can be applied to his own "partial synthesis, or inconclusion"47 is to jump ahead of his own admitted lack of expertiseinthisareaanddoHeideggeraninjustice.Foraswesawattheendof chaptertwelve,Heidegger'sconceptionoftruthcarriednotonlyanontological dimensionsuchasFregepostulated,butalsothepossibilityofanontologicallydrivenexperiencethattranscendedbothordinaryandnon-ordinarythinkingin relation to the being of beings. But only in relation to langauge somehow transcendingitsownsyntacticallimitations.
TheDepth-DimensionoftheSelf
When it comes to what mysticism is in itself, Westar Fellow and Professor of ReligionandPhilosophyPaulAlanLaughlin'sapproachandcomprehensionisa pleasing change from the above. In a two-part article titled "Pray Without Seeking",Laughlincomplainsthatthe"Contemporarydiscourseaboutthenature ofmysticism,evenamongscholars,manifestsagreatlackofclarityandmuch confusion."48 Without preamblehetakes onEvelyn Underhill'sscholarly claim that"mysticism[isa]senseeitherofonenesswithGod(unitive)orofbeinginthe presenceofGod(numinous)",whenatdepthitisinfactneitherofthose.Suchan interpretationstrikeshimas"anexampleofanaffectivedevotionalism(usuallyin the form of love, faith, and worship) directed toward an Other, generally a profoundly transcendent deity."49 Laughin prefers the Princeton philosopher Walter T. Stace's definition of mysticism as "the apprehension of an ultimate nonsensuousunityinallthings,aonenessoraOnetowhichneitherthesenses northereason canpenetrate."50 Andthere isvery goodreasontothinkthis definitionofmysticism'scardinalfeaturesbetterthanthatofUnderhill's,forit accurately reflects how this state "transcends our sensory-intellectual consciousness."51 The major strand in the history of mysticism was not devotionalism, says Laughlin, it was the "immanent (that is, indwelling) One abiding within the cosmos, world, and nature, and (most importantly) in the individual'sdeepestself."52Notan"Other"inthesenseofadivineresponder, which was/is the foundation argument for monotheism's God out there somewhere,more"anon-personal,immanentpower-presence...thatisnone other(ornon-Other)than[ourown]spiritualcore".53Topraywithoutceasingis then "an evocative exercise in self-realisation" where the ego-self is "distinguished from one's deepest and truest identity",54 not an invocative,
petitionery device hostage to a supra-mundane deity's whims. There is a mysterious, a-rational depth dimension beyond the ego-self's flat, onedimensionalconceptionofself,other,andworld,andnon-supplicatoryprayerisa mechanismthroughwhichthatdimensioncanbeentered.55
Thistellsusthatthereissomethingprofoundgoingoninthedepthsof psycheofwhichweareonlyvaguelyaware,somethinginrelationtotheselfthat hastobeexperiencedtobebelieved.Notbelievedinaswiththenotionofthe supra-mundane God's existence, but experientially encountered through the processofmeditationalorcontemplativedescent.Topraywithoutceasinghas thennothingwhatsoevertodowithverbal,ego-driven,supplicatorywants,hopes and desires; it is quite simply the sustaining of a state of mind within which language is silenced and an ever deepening silence becomes the means of communication.Thissilenceiscertainlyempty,butitisneithertheminimalistic emptinessDonCupittassociateswiththereductionofbeliefthroughintellectual acuity, or Koestler's controlled annihilation of the self through suicidal yogic practices:itisthecessationofallthoughtassenseofselfundergoesprofound changeandanotherquitedifferentselfbeginstoemerge.
Butlet'sdoubleback,for inPart Twoofhis article, Laughlinnotesthat Stace, like Underhill, makes a distinction between inner and outer forms of mysticalexperience,butwithonesubtledifference:hisouter,extrovertive,naturebasedtypeofmysticismisexperientiallynodifferentfromthatexperiencedinan introvertivesense.ImmanenceinthesenseofanindwellingOnenessisjustas detectable "within the cosmos, world, and nature [as it is] in the individual's deepestself."56ThisisnotCupitt'saestheticappreciationofnaturebyanother name,norisit"naturemysticism"inaWordsworthiansense;itisanaltogether different experience in relation to consciousness in the throws of perceptual/conceptual change. The ego-self's inveterate need to differentiate betweenselfandotheris,insuchinstances,switchedoffandanothermodeof perceptiontakesitsplace.Inanattempttointegratethismodeofperceptioninto ahumanist,person-centredinterpretationofreality,Laughlinshufflesourrational, empiricalfacultiesinthesamemannerashenotesPlatodoeswith"soul"and
"psyche",butheintheendfallsbackintotalkingofa"mysteriousPresenceor Powerthat(atleastformystics)permeatesorinfusesthecosmos".57Thatisthe telling point, for if we have no sense of a depth-dimension in human nature, which is itself an expression of Nature, then our evaluation of thehuman will remain flat and one-dimensional even if the human is central to our philosophy.58
Bishop Spong has such a sense, and it is deep, but it is in many ways differentfromLaughin'sandStace's,andcertainlydifferentfromthatofCupitt's. UnlikeLaughin,Spongequates"being"(thedepth-dimensionofthehuman)with Godintermsofan"expansionofhumanconsciousness",aligns"being"withGod astheGroundofAllBeing,andbeforeyoucansay,well,anything,makes"being" notonlypartofGod,butalsothatwhich"participatesinthebeingofGod."59 Godthenbecomes"notaseparateentity,butthedepthdimensionofbeingitself ...presentineverylivingthingbut[which]comestoself-consciousnessonlyin the human life."60 This is a remarkable linguistic feat using philosophical theologyasadistractinglyflexibletool,butitisperhapstooconvolutedinits reasoningtoassesswhetheritisaccurateeveninitsownterms.Thatsaid,itisstill abraveattempttoshakeofftraditionaltheism'sstrangleholdonwesternsociety, albeitattheintellectuallevelonly.Thatmaysoundchurlishgiventheattention BishopSpongpaystothequestionofbeingandcapitalisedBeing,andtohis deep engagement with such questions, but when all is said and done his philosophically profound evaluation of our spiritual dilemma remains no more thanaformulathatonlyatrainedintellectcanappreciate.
SoalsoDonCupitt'sruthless,rationalrejectionofeverythingandanything heconsidersahalfwaymeasureinrelationtothesamefundamentalquestions, questions that have caused him "violent elation and distress" as he pondered them.Suchprofoundemotionalengagementcannotbeignored,butneithercan Cupitt'sratherbloodlessconclusions.Asasubstituteforold-fashionedreligious experience,aestheticappreciationandamorerobustsenseofNatureisapoor offering,particularlyasitisanineteenth-centuryformulalongsincelaidaside.
Thereagain,ifCupittisrightinhisthinking,thenallwecandoistalkabouthow wetalkaboutthings,allexperiencesofGod,orof"being",beingreducedtono morethanreligiousvocabulary,allreligiousviewsbeingrelativeinthattheyare nomorethandifferentvocabulariesfulfillingdifferentsocialfunctions.Which,to saythelest,doesnotalleviatethesocialandinternationaltensionscausedby conflictingreligiousvisions;weneedtolookelsewhereifweare"todealwith whatcanonlybecalledtheconceptualandpracticalmesswefindourselvesin withregardtotheassessmentofreligiousbeliefsandpractices."61SosaysJohn Kelly in AFineMess , an article that tracks, and attacks, the Geering/Cupitt argument in relation to language, and it is an approach with which I wholeheartedlyagreeinthatanti-realism'sthesisfallsfarshortofasatisfactory answertothecrucialreligiousandsocialconcernsofourtime.
ReferencesandNotes
1) Spong,JohnShelby,EternalLife,HarperCollinsPublisher,2009.p.140.
2) Cupitt,Don,ReformingChristianity,PolbridgePress,SantaRosa,California,USA., 2001.p1.
3) Ibid.
4) Ibid,p.3.
5) Ibid.
6) Ibid.
7) Spong,JohnShelby,EternalLife,(asabove)p.175.
8) Watts,Alan,BeholdtheSpirit,PantrheonBooks,USA.,1971.Preface,p.xi.
9) Ibid,Preface,p.xi.
10) Ibid,Preface,xii.
11) Watts,Alan,TheJoyousCosmology,backcover.VintageBooks,US.,1965.
12) Watts,Alan,BeholdtheSpirit,PrefacePantheonBooks,US.,1971.p.xiii.
13) Ibid.
14) Ibid.
15) Spong,JohnShelby,EternalLife,(asabove)p.140.
16) bid.
17) Ibid.
18) Ibid,Preface,p.xviii.
19) Ibid,p.143. WithregardtoTillich'sphilosophy,WilliamBradenremarksthatTillich insisted thatabsolutefaithshouldbeprecededbyabsolutedoubtanddespair becauseonemustfirst confessthatexistenceismeaningless,thenacceptone's existenceinspiteofthis.AccordingtoBraden(p.87),thiswasTillich'scouragetobe ,an acceptanceofmeaninglessnessthroughanactoffaiththatoverrodedoubtanddespair throughanacceptanceoftheabsurd.Absolutefaithwasabsoluteresignation,astateof mindbeyondreasonablefaith.ThisisnottheNewTestamentdefinitionof"faith", however.AsBradenpointsout,John,inhisEpistle,doesnotsaythatfaithisbasedonthe absurd;hesaysitisbasedonevidence.Faith,likescience,isaformofdeduction;it'sjust themythodologyemployedthat'sdifferent.Sciencereliesontheconscious,rationalmind,
faithontheunconscious,intuitivemind.Inthissensethechurcheswereignoringthevital roleoftheunconsciousinreligiousexperience.Summingup,Bradenwrites,"Ifpeople cannotfinduntimaterealityinJesusChrist,theyarenotgoingtofinditinTillich.(p.120)
20) Ibid.ItisinterestingtonotethatBishopRobinson,famousforhisbookHonestto God(1963),eventuallyjetisonedtheterm"GroundofBeing"duetoitcausingsomuch confusionamongthefaithful.AssumingGroundofBeingtobeanimpersonalphrase, believersconstruedthetermtobeaquestioningofGod'spersonalexistence,andassuch aquestioningoftheirpersonalrelationshiptoGod.WhichleftRobinsonwithareal problem,foraninner,asopposedtoanouter,churchy,belief-ladenexperienceofGodwas exactlywhatthegoodBishopwantedpeopletohave,buttheonlywaythefaithfulseemed capableofrealisingthisinnerexperiencewasthroughconceivingofGodasapersonal possession.
21) Ibid,p.143.
22) Ibid,p.140.
23) Ibid.
24) Cupitt,Don,TheRevelationofBeing,(asabove)p. 15.
25) Ibid,p17.
26) Ibid.
27) Watts,Alan,TheJoyousCosmology,(asabove)p.90.
28)I bid,p.91.
29) Spong,JohnShelby,EternalLife,(asabove)p.140.
30) Watts,Alan,TheJoyousCosmology,(asabove)p89.
31) Geering,Lloyd,ChristianityWithoutGod,PolbridgePress,SantaRosa,California 2002.pp.46-47.
32) Ibid,p.48.
33) Ibid,p.58.
34) Ibid,p.59.
35) Ibid.
36) Ibid,p.50.
37) Cupitt,Don,TheRevelationofBeing,CSMPress,Ltd.,1998.p.59.
38) Cupitt,Don,'TheWanderingPhilosopher',articleinTheFourth"R",theinhouse magazineoftheWestarInstitute,Vol.14No.1.Jan-Feb2001.p.4.
39) Ibid.
40) Ibid,p.5.
41) Ibid.
42) Ibid,p.6.
43) Ibid,p.5.
44) Ibid.
45) Ibid.
46) Ibid.
47) Ibid.
48) Laughlin,PaulAlan,'PrayWithoutSeeking',PartTwo,TheFourth"R",inhouse magazineoftheWestarInstitute,Vol.22.No.5&6,Nov-Dec2009.p.20.
49) Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid,p.21.
Ibid.
Ibid.
56) Ibid,p.20.
57) bid,p.21.
58) Ibid,p.22.
59) Spong,JohnShelby,EternalLife ,(asabove)p.143.
60) Ibid.
61) Kelly,John,"AFineMess"TheFourth"R",inhousemagazineoftheWestarInstitute, p.24.