JenellYB

I think these definitions of pluralism ignore the interconnection between religion, cultural and social practice. Of it were merely a matter of each different group observing and practicing their religion behind the doors of their churches, synagues, whatever designated sacred places, and their own homes, that works. But people go out into daily life, acting out of that intertwined mix of religion, cultural and social practices, and there is going to be discord between how one groups accustomed behaviors and attitudes interact and even interfere with those of others. To use the example I mentioned above, of pre-European native culture and society, particularly as it existed in North America, ideas and practices pertaining to differing views toward property ownership and control and distribution of resources were entirely interwoven with spiritual and religious beliefs. Co-existence with respect for the different cultural traditions and beleifs simply was literally not possible. When we consider religious pluralism based on mutual acceptance and respect for different religions, for example, that very idea infringes upon some very core beliefs and practices of those in evangelical oriented traditions....going out and trying to convert others is an intregal part of their religion and religious tradtions. Jenell

Cont from previous...Within our own culture/society, as within many, multiple sub-cultures and sub-societies have developed and exist both at once on a Y axis, individually adapted to its position within the overall cultural/socio-economic structure of "America" as a larger construct, and in proximity to and relationship with other sub-cultures/sub-societies, on an X axis. These sub-cultures/sub-societies exist as distinct units, realitivisms, in adaptation to the particular set of envrionmental condtions within which they have developed. These different envrinomental conditions, presenting a variety of challenges, range from differences in economic and educational resources, lifestyles and income bases ranging from rural/agrarian, industrial, merchant, property owning business, to working class, Each of those classes, for example, working class, are usually further subdivided according to levels of education and skills, social prestige, and income levels. To address specifcally religion and church communities, relative to this line of consideration, I think we miss something very significant when we see differences between denominations and even individual churches within any particular community, as based upon, rooted in, or resulting from, differences in "religious beliefs" per se, ie, theological. I don't think people within a community graviate toward certain churches for how the theological traditions there conform to their own theological beliefs, but rather toward those in which the members of the congregation are similar in their own socio-economic sub-cultural group. I also do not think the particular set of commonly accepted or tradtional theological posistions and doctrines shape the values and beliefs of the people of the congregation, but rather the reverse, the sub-culturally instilled values and beliefs systems shape theology and doctrine. The ways any particular congregation express their religious ideas and values reflect more their real-life socio-economic, sub-cultural group than an overarching theology. Interaction and common fellowship between congregants tend more along those socio-economic, sub-cultural standards than any unfied doctrinal position. Culturally, socially, economically, and politically liberal communities create churches with common doctrines, practices, and interests considtent with their sub-cultural class, the same is true at the church down the road made up of those that are steeped in traditions of a culturally, socially, economically, and polically conservative sub-culture. ie, churches do not create, shape, conform people to a set of doctirnes and beliefs, and values, but the reverse...people of a shared set of common doctrines, beleifs, and values create a church that conforms to who they already were. I think this very much underlies how we might view "catholic" in a sense of "universal" church. The issue is not really rooted in trying to find a plurality between different religious beleifs, but different socio-economic and cultural groups. Consider in NT testament references, particularly the writings of Paul, that individual churches were referenced by geography only. The church at Rome, the church at Corinth, etc. Not churches but the church. There was not one church over here in the upper-class merchant neighborhood, another over there in the common laborer quarters, nor one over here for the Greek community, another over there for the Roman community, etc. Just as in the communal church as Jeruselum, all elements of society cooperated within one church community, without division between rich or poor, priveledged class or under class. This meant all worked together the meet the needs of all. And that's the crux point of our social justice issues now, both within and without the church. Jenell Jenell

I'm thinking 'pluralism' and 'relativism' might not be so much at different ends of a spectrum, so much as a set of spectrums existing in a perpendicular relationship to one another. If represented on a mathmatical type graph, 'pluralism' as on X axis, 'relativism' as on Y axis, it might be represented in graphing linear equations to locate various points of XY intercept. The relativism axis would be most involved with the development of tribalism, for instance, as as any individual community/group organizes its society in ways that are best adapted to successful survival of the community as a whole and harmonious function within in, in the particular environmental conditions of its existence. It is to be expected as well that even in meeting challenges common to any community, any particular group may do so in different ways, but always however particular single challenges are met must coordinate with ways different challenges are met, so that the result is working as a whole. The pluralism axis would be where various individually developed group, or social unit, exists of a field relative to any others. As long as great distances, where geographically or culturally, separate each distinct unit, there is little interaction or potential for discord between them. When that distance is reduced, two or more distinct units, "tribes", come into closer contact with one another, overlapping to share some of the same ground, or same point on the point of intersect on the XY axis, each is going to effect and change the dynamics of functions within the others' group. This is often a source of considerable discord and dysfunction in the interaction with different groups, when two or more groups that evolved independently of one another begin to mingle and co-habit. The practical social function a certain practice holds within one group may not effectively serve the same function in another, because the effective function or any part is coordinated to the whole. Problems arise for individuals within each group as their accustomed practices, behaviors, responses to those of others, are percieved and responded to differently by those accustomed to a different social structure. A commonly understood example of that was the problems when indigneus peoples of the Americas encountered those of European cultures. Core cultural differences, such as about communal sharing vs exclusive ownership control of property and resources, matriarchal vs patriarchal family and community structures, created major discord and obstacles to comunication and successful co-existence. Because there were simply too many and too great differences in not only how each culture functioned within itself, but in how the percieved appropriate interaction with and between other social groups, there was simply no ground for pluralistic co-existence. There was too little that was shared in common between the different cultures, to allow them to co-exist on the same geographical ground. Jenell

i think this is much on the concept of finding one's own voice, WD notes, as Jesus himself demonstrated. And yet, of His own voice as he spoke it, wasn't just a disconnected "meism", but grounded in certain foundational core values. Any of our "worship" is our way of contexting the core foundational values we may share, but express in different forms, If liturgy and formalized rituals and services are the outward expressions that move us into reverence forthe sacred, or more exhuberant celebrations, or quiet time for reflection, they are merely forms of expressions, not what is being expressed. As for "believing in" any particular representation of underlying elements, such as Christ or the Trinity, we can recognize that those are merely the way in which for us we've conceptualized in a way our mind can contemplate, what underlies them. Even using such terms as Christ and The Trinity, there is far from any consistent, unified belief in just what those things actually are....doctrines of Christ and The Trinity vary widely and signficantly even among Christians. To me, for example, I percieve The Trinity as (God The Father) the ground of being out of which our existence emerges, (Holy Spirit) as the activating and animating principle working within that existence, and (God the Son) the expressed existence that is "created", manifested, as the result of those. And I think what underlies those terms are often present in other beleifs systems as well, just categorized differently and called by other words. Jenell

Yvonne, you posted the last whileI was typing the above. You and your husband, a Muslim, learned to find and celebrate your commonalities. That is good. But learning to find the cooperation between your differences I think is equally good. Jenell

Yvonne wrote: " I think when our worship becomes too ecumenical (is that a better word than watered down?) we lose some of our identity. That is has happened to me. I listened to so many voices, I lost my own. I am not being exclusive or elitist. I am being me." Yes, I think it is, if I'm following what you are trying to express. I had to ponder "ecumencial" a bit here, revisit definitions and applications, as well as implications of this word socommonlyused, and yet so often in different and even conflicting way. In one sense of its meaning, " worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application" I am brought to think about how that is even possible to apply to reality, with so many different cultures, societies, real-world differences in how people must live and function in their particular environment and circumstances. I can only reconcile that meaning with something that must be very elemental, a very foundational building block, that it can effectively underlie so many different structures. It is something "ground up" in nature. Something basic, underlying all,that is the same, upon which are constructed different "buildings." In another sense of meaning, " a. of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches, b: promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation " I percieve the opposite, that of a "top down" concept, that must be all embracing,under one umbrella. Something that represents a whole, that upon closer examination ismade up of many parts. What really catches my attention is that "unity or cooperation"," Unity is not synonmous with homogeniety. Unity is varous parts fitted together to make up awhile, not blended into smooth sameness throughout. Neither is cooperation synonymous with every part marching in lock-set, doing the same thing at the same time in the same way. Cooperation is different, but complimentary actions that together achieve what none alone can. As analogy, whatever I may be doing at any time, each part of my body, my left hand and my right, my left foot and my right, my head and my back and my hips and everything are all doing very different things, moving in different ways, and yet, all my body parts work together to accomplish whatever my intended action is. But I also know it was not always so. As an infant, I had to discover each body part, and what each was capable of doing by itself, long before I would be able to begin coordinating the actions of all those different parts so as to get more than one of them working together to accomplish something that required them to carry out their different actions in a coordinated manner. It took a long time for each of those different body parts to realize they couldn't just do whatever they wanted to, autonomously, whenever they felt like it, without regard or consideration for what the others were doing. Just as my legs, for example, were learning how to support my body weight so as to stand up, if my arms decided to express my excitement by flinging themselves into the air, pulling my hands from their grip on the coffee table, we all went tumbling! As all my different body parts learned and accepted coordinating with the whole of me, to work together, none of them by that lost their distinct identity as separate body parts. In the analogy to ecumenicalism, my various body parts do not have to become just like one another, and function just like one another, carry out exactly the same functions and actions as all the others. In fact, for the sake of "me", as I am the "whole" these different parts both make up (ground up) and at the same time, they are the component parts of "me" (top down). Is this making any sense? I have experienced, in matters of religion, I think, something like you mean, Yvonne. Yes, I can remember a time when it seemed my "old identity" as a believer of a certain of religious ideas that were really all I'd ever known, was being lost, a kind of death, really, of a major part of who/what I had percieved myself to be, it did at times feel like I'd "lost it all." I've mentioned before of a time when if I hadn't found any kind of Christianity other than what I've known, I was to a point of becoming no longer a Christian at all. And to be honest, I still at times have to deal with some of that, re-establish some of my "ground of being" so to speak. Further, there came a point at which I could also no longer accept that if being a Christian was the only way one could know or experence God, then I couldn't continue being a Christian, either. I was learning, and hope to continue learning, that I am not just a hand, or a foot, separate and autonomous from the rest of the body, which is the whole I am just a part of, which is all humanity, all being. I have to respect the importance of other body parts. But I can still be a hand, I don't have to make myself over into a handfootarmlegheadbacketc homogenous lump, either. Together, cooperatively, we can do things none of us can do alone. Jenell

Nick, exactly. The perspective of that course, by the way, as the subject was handled, was that although Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" was our core text, the instructor drew in texts from many other perpectives, ( that course holdsthe record for number of "required reading texts"--there were NINE of them in addition to Huntington's text!) to present a well rounded and well constructed argument AGAINST Huntington's conclusion. While Huntington focuses on "fracture lines" between cultures and religious tradtions as "source" of division and conflict, and something of an atheistic pessimistic view of the role and future of religion, that course theme was actually about how it might be that the solutions come from WITHIN religions themselves, from common ground in love, human community, to overcome those differences.... Jenell

Nic, you present some very valid ideas, and I'm familiar with at least the first 2 authors you mention...what you present in your post about diversity actually creating polarization and strengthening of cultural'religious distinctions with communities was one of the various perspectives covered in a Religious Studies course I took, "Clash of Civilizations." (core text was Huntington's book by that name) When diversity and increasing contact between cultures and religions create a sense of various groups "losing distinct identity",they tend to become MORE fundamentalist and extremely devoted to cultural/religious traditions of their own cultures. Another excellent work in this direction, from a different perspective than we are as Americans more accustomed to, that, I was introducted to connected to that element of unrest in the world is "The Clash of Fundamentalisms- Crusades, Jihads and Modernity" by Tariq Ali. Jenell Nickposted" "ok, I'm in between festive activities with family, so I can type This is a somewhat different and relaxing afternoon and evening for me in connection to the holiday, as well...I'm doing a major part of the cooking for Thanksgiving dinner here, to transport to one of my daughter's homes in the morning, sparing her most of it as she get her home ready for our family to descend upon tomorrow...So I'm typing here between putting this and on to cook, checking and stirring, in my little house all cozy warm with delicious smells and heat from the kitchen.

I keep coming back to the idea of "moderation" in all the afore-mentioned sets of dichotomies and aparant opposite polarities. To me, "moderation" represents something quite different from either pluralism or relativism. It is a willingness to find common ground through balance. Yvonne, you used the term "watered-down." And, if I'm understanding you correctly, that is related to what you also noted about having come to feel less comfortable here that you once were, for that there may be such a concern here for offending some other in their differring beliefs, there seems no solid ground upon which to base any belief. Now, I must admit upfront, "watered-down" beliefs, "watered-down religion", are for me, personally, because of some of my personal history, very negatively "loaded" terms. It was used basically to state I am right, and any departure from what I beleive is right, is departure from "rightness," So with that said upfront, I am going to try to speak to them in as reasonable manner as I can, please forgive if any of the negative connotations those terms hold for me taint it. It seems to me in refering to "watered-down', we are not talking about, or thinking about, respect for the idea that we may not ourselves hold the only "right" beliefs, that our own positions might legitamately be moderated by things we haven't fully considered yet, but rather that those we hold are, in their purest form, "the only" or the "most" right ones, and any departure from the full strength of them is toward weakness. I may be misunderstanding, but this seems you are expressing some level of belief that while you may be willing to accept some other's "failure" to hold those right beliefs strongly enough, willing to accept some degree of "weakness" or "error" in others and their beliefs, you are not granting that those other ideas just might be as valid as those you are holding in that light, and not error at all. As a real example, I was raised in a culture that absolutely condemned such things as divorce and remarriage, considering remarriage even as adultery. When my life life took the turn it did early on in an early unwed pregnancy, early brief and turbulent marriage, and later remarriage, to raise my 4 children, 2 from my first and 2 from my second, that religious tradtion and culture rejected me. As times changed a bit and I discovered not all churches or Christians were so totally condemning, accepted there are circumstances that happen in people's lives that make the 'ideal' not always possible, those of that 'old school' considered those moderated ideas to be "watered-down" versions of their pure religious truth. When we think of something "watered-down", we think of something of a pure strength that has been diluted, made weaker, less. We don't think of that something else being just different, and perhaps even as good or strong as that being "watered down." To be "watered-down" suggests to me an adulteration of the purity of simething with nothingness, making it a weaker version ofwhatever the pure "good stuff" was we started with. Example, if we mix pure orange juice with an aqual part of water, or pure pineapple juice, with an equal part of plain water, we have "watered down" juice of which ever variety. But, if we mix equal parts of pure orange juice and pinapple juice, we haven't "watered down" anything, we still have full strength juice, and quite a tasty blend of flavors that doesn't dishonor either original in the mix. I see being open to considering ideas and beliefs other than what I've held, or hold now, and any moderation and/or adjustments I may make accordingly, not as watering-down my "original" beliefs, but growing toward a more full-bodied and even stronger belief system. Jenell

My son drove me to south Texas to my aunt's funeral today 5 hour drive each way, did the turn around in total 12 1/2 hrs...Drive, funeral, lunch, drive. His little car gets better gas milage than my chrysler mini van, but oh those cheap flat hard seats! Tired. All in all, though, a good day. I'm glad I went. Jenell

Wow, Joseph, synchronicity in this! A nice visit with a old friend yesterday evening in which much conversation was turned toward how, no matter how much we think we can see and of know what is going on in someone else's life situations, we can never really know what goes on behind closed doors, that in contexts both of in their private lives, in their home, and what is going on in their mind, their thoughts and feelings. That we don't know, cannot know, and its none of our business,anyway. That when we think to try to do that, all we are doing is trying to judge them, their motives, and actions, in ways we have no right to. I kept thinking about this last night, and woke up with it on my mind this morning...why is it that we seem to think we should, have to, or even want to do this? Jenell

One of my dear aunts, recently discovered to have an advanced and rapidly growing cancer growth around her heart, is under the care of another aunt, in her home, and other family members under the assistance of Hospice care, many miles from me, and her condition has begun to deteriorate rapidly over the last few days. Both of these dear ladies are in their late 70's, and are the closest to one another of all my Dad's siblings, all their lives, and both very special to me all my life. In the last 24 hrs her lucidity has deteriorated fast, she's confused, impatient, disoriented, sounds like terminal restlessness has set in and progressing. My prayers for them all, it's a terribly difficult time for all, especially those caring her constantly. I'm not going to try go now, they have too much and too many coming in to say goodbyes now as it is. I'm grateful I had that opportunity with her several months ago, while she was still fully lucid. I am working on getting it together to be ready to go for the funeral.

I hadn't been reading this thread, but am struck by the parallels I see in some here, of making straight that which is crooked, etc, to some I've posted elsewhere pertaining to justification, as to make right, bring what is out of alignement into true alignment, and the 'pearl of great price' as the process through which justification is accomplished as a work in our journey, from a christocentric view. Interesting how often it seems when I'm thinking along a certain line, I so often find others are too, even if it is being expressed in a different language. Jenell

Interesting juxtaposition...

Hmmmm..maybe I've really androgenous.....I have to keep a short check rein on the onfrontational part........ Jenell

I can definitely relate. Jenell

In my present situation, I have become very much aware of, for practical reasons in my material circumstance,as well as my psycholgical and emotional well-being, that old ways of life that have served me well in the past no longer are...an old way of life, lifestyle, is dying, no, is dead...and I feel stagnated, stuck, in which direction and how to move on from here, and in many ways overwhelmed by the practical task of doing so. I pray for guidance and strength in making changes, finding and negotiating the next turn in my path, and peace in laying down the old as i seek at the same time positiive anticipation toward something new. Jenell

Perhaps an irony in this....had I not come to a point of rejecting what of it, as I knew it, I probably would never have stepped away from that which was familiar, to even explore other directions. I think we tend to forget that such words as "disillusioned" and "disenchanted" and "disappointed" actually represent something very positive and good. Jenell

It was quite a startling revelation to me when, into my 4th decade of life, I discovered there even WAS Christianity different from the Evangelical traditions I had been exposed to. Well,of course, there were those Catholics, but a lot of evangelicals don't even consider them 'real Christians' to begin with, and then of course, those crazy "Holy-Rollers" whose "tongues" the few times I'd heard them scared me out of my wits,lol! Little of what I had been taught about either turned out to be true. As I began to step out of that box, it was like Wow! I had truly almost completely rejected Christianity and anything about it entirely before I began to explore outside the narrow confines of the traditions I was raised in. I think you'll find it an interesting part of your journey. Jenell

Well, if this drought is Rick Perry's fault, I sure hope all those godly conservative Republicans in this state are happy with the result of having elected him to two terms as governor...in the news here, estimates are as many as 10% of this areas trees will be dead within 2 yrs....trees covered with dry brown leaves are everywhere you look down here....I'm not talking about trees where there have been fires, but just from the drought, in yards, parks, woodlands, all around us. Part of the problems IS Perry's fault, in Texas being poorly prepared for even minor drought, let alone this, he inhereted a state-wide crisis in both flood control and water infrastructure, storage facilities and capacity, aging crumbling distribution systems insufficient to meet even normal demands let alone Texas' rapidly growing population and uncontrolled 'urban sprawl', from his precesscor, George W Bush. Many proposed large reservoir projects around the state that would have addressed both flooding and insufficient water storage capacity have sat on the back burned for decades, so Bush and Perry could look good for their 'balanced budget' images. Texans were presented with EXCELLENT alternate choices for both Republicans ISenator Kay Bailey Hutchinson) and Democrat (long term Houston mayer Bill White) in our last election of Governor, and they chose Perry again! Crazy!

As I browsed the news over morning coffee, it seemed stories pertaining to the presently popular discussion and expression of differing views of whether or not natural disasters are messages or warnings from God, or punishment upon sinful people and nations, were a recurring theme. Thinking to perhaps find existing threads here on the board where discussion of this has already begun, that I might perhaps contribute to, I entered "natural disaster" into the search box...and got this message... Flood control is enabled. Please wait at least 20 seconds before attempting to search again Oh well. Probably nothing more to be said in this topic than already has been. Jenell

I think many of the songs by Celtic Woman speak in a hauntingly beautiful way to the mystic relationship of the soul to the Beloved..

Good points, James and Pete. Jenell

The greatest of all warriors is not he who wins over his enemies, but he who wins his enemies over. (another of those not sure if I read it somewhere in the distant past or made it up myself,)