See here, and here, and here for some previous notes I took while reading this very helpful book.

And now for some of Rohr’s statements which evoked an ‘Ouch!’ response:

* Judaism, Christianity and Islam have not been known for creating ‘harmonizing’ people. In general, peacemaking, non-violence, love for the outsider or for the poor, humility and dialogue have never been the strength of these religions (p. 41)

* Racism, sexism, elitism, classism, torture, homophobia, poverty and the degradation of the earth… are still largely unaddressed by the ordinary monotheistic ‘believer’ (42)

* The second-biggest denomination in the U.S. after Roman Catholics is former RC’s. Has this ever happened before in history? [Why are] so many people alienated from their own tradition and religion? (43)

* Within the Christian Church we have avoided Jesus’ direct and clear teachings on issues such as non-violence, a simple lifestyle, love of the poor, forgiveness, lovew of enemies, inclusivity, mercy, and not seeking status, power, perks and possessions (94). The things we emphasized were normally intellectual beliefs or moral superiority stances that asked little of us – the divinity of Christ, virgin birth, atonement theory, and beliefs about reproduction and sex.

****

My personal response to Richard’s main thesis in this book – we should progress from dualistic to non-dualistic thinking, but respect people who are at different stages on the journey – reminds me of the guy who during the American Civil War tried to be ‘both-and’: he wore the jacket of one side and the trousers of the other, and got shot-at from both directions. What I think Richard is saying is this: don’t get locked into ideological battles; be both-and; and if they’re fighting in the valleys get up onto the mountain, where you’ll have a different perspective (‘way of seeing’) on the situation.

At Blackburn Baptist Church we tried to be inclusive – affirming both conservative and progressive approaches to Christian doctrine and living – and found that this approach ‘worked’ for the vast majority of the congregation, if they knew they were loved and pastorally cared for in the process. A couple of very conservative folk left (they were fundamentalist, or conservative on the charismatic issue) but most stayed: and our pastoral team of nine people reflected a great diversity of approaches.

I like Richard’s statement about his abhorrence of copyright (though his publisher insists on it). (Similarly, nothing I have written is copyright – s’long as it’s copied right 🙂 !

But my one question remains: if a contemplative mind is such a bonus to living the spiritual life authentically, how can it be developed in the rush and bustle of ordinary life – especially for people who commute each day to a vocation of solving complex problems, or for, say, young mothers who have their hands full with household chores? The ‘how to’s’ for such people are not here… Most of Richard’s mentors seem to be monks or saints or recluses with lots of silence and stillness… But then, I say to myself, if Dag Hammarskjold can learn to do it in his frenetic life, anyone can…

His comment about levels of psychological development (Piaget, Kohlberg, Maslow, James Fowler, Ken Wilbur etc.) (p. 163 ff.) raises the question: can folks stuck in a ‘concrete thinking’ mode ever learn to be contemplatives???

Food for thought…

Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

July 3, 2010

PS. Now here’s a thoughtful comment by someone on Facebook:

“As I recall the Gnostics were the dualists during early Christianity… An important point is that dualisms aren’t wrong just because somehow dualism is bad. The problem is false dichotomies, which are the kinds of dualism that should be challenged. The Gnostic dualism labeled the spiritual good and the physical evil, but there are plenty of twists on this, such as anthropological dualism where the poor are good and the rich are evil… or racial dualism, or gender dualism. I believe that these are the false dichotomies, like prisms that people look at the world through, that should be challenged.

Anyway, all that said, false dichotomies can’t always be solved by casting an either/or as a both/and, or through a Hegelian synthesis, or by finding a “middle” way (median fallacy – the middle way isn’t always the right way) or a “third” way. Sometimes the false dichotomy originates in the way the problem is framed, or it confuses objects for properties, or the dichotomy can be resolved by breaking from looking at the dualism as two poles but as two dimensions so you can retain an either/or capacity while allowing for both/and as well…”