God forgive me if this is blasphemous, but I simply can’t believe that God, whatever He, She, or It happens to be, demands or wants worship. I realize that one can define “worship” in different ways, including a way that does not require the recipient of the worship to be vainglorious, but, as I see it, the vast majority of nihilists visualize worship as involving adoration, bowing, and praising a pompous deity, as the early Egyptians did with their gods. The nihilists can’t reconcile such pomposity with a God of love and mercy. When they see that various churches are holding “worship” services, they jest at the naiveté and credulity of the “worshippers,” the believers in such ancient rituals.
Therein, I believe, is one of religion’s biggest failures. First and foremost, It should be promoting the evidence that consciousness survives death that has come to us over the past 175 or so years from psychical research. Once that evidence is examined and understood, God can be better appreciated and morality heightened. Worship takes on a different meaning, but neither the believers nor the nihilists see it.
I fully understand the argument of the “humanist” (a more acceptable word for the nihilist, once referred to as a “moralist”) that being morally righteous, however one defines that, should not be a matter or fearing punishment in an afterlife or expecting a reward. More heroic is the person who does good without such fear or expectation. However, the nihilist, or humanist, in all of his rebellious enlightenment and wisdom, seemingly jumps to the conclusion that the believer is motivated to do good solely by the anticipated reward or to avoid evil by the terrifying punishment without considering that the “believer” can be as heroic as the non-believer and that society benefits more from an amalgamation of belief and heroism than by heroism alone. Heroism alone would likely result in much greater chaos than we are presently witnessing.
A different kind of fear presents itself with what has been called “existential angst” – fear of total extinction or obliteration of the personality. This malady does not usually take hold until one approaches what he or she sees as the abyss of nothingness, or until a loved one takes a leap into the imagined abyss. Such angst is beyond measurement or treatment by mental-health experts schooled in materialistic medicine. As William James, one of the fathers of modern psychology, put it, “The moralist must hold his breath and keep his muscles tense; and so long as this athletic attitude is possible all goes well – morality suffices. But the athletic attitude tends ever to break down and it inevitably does break down even in the most stalwart when the organism begins to decay, or when morbid fears invade the mind.”
At the other extreme, going beyond disbelief and blind faith to true faith or conviction, the thoughtful believer reasons like Søren Kierkegaard, referred to as the “father of existentialism,” did when he wrote, “If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the foundation of there lay only a wildly seething power which writhing with obscure passions produced everything that is great and everything that is insignificant, if a bottomless void never satiated lay hidden beneath all – what then would life be but despair?” Kierkegaard added that “if an eternal oblivion were always lurking hungrily for its prey and there was no power strong enough to wrest it from its maw – how empty then and comfortless life would be!”
Despair & Trembling
As Kierkegaard also reasoned, a person in despair about earthly matters is really in despair about the eternal. He just doesn’t realize it because he is too focused on the earthly and not enough on the spiritual. If I am correctly interpreting Kierkegaard, the subconscious fears regarding eternal extinction are the root cause of his “despair and trembling,” but it is never identified by the person or medical practitioners. Indications are that the current world madness and turmoil has the same roots. It is being driven by existential angst.
However, it’s rarely an “all-or-nothing” mindset. There are many shades of gray or degrees of faith and conviction, ranging from nihilism to blind faith and on to a strong conviction and even absolute certainty. While the believer in a larger life may still fear death to some degree, the belief that consciousness survives it offers some peace of mind. Such peace of mind is not available to the non-believer, although some non-believers claim they can “live in the moment” and not concern themselves with what is to come. Carpe Diem! Seize the day!
As Professor James saw the “one-life-at-a-time” approach: “Let sanguine healthy-mindedness do its best with its strange power of living in the moment and ignoring and forgetting, still the evil background is really there to be thought of, and the skull will grin in at the banquet. In the practical life of the individual, we know how his whole gloom or glee about any present fact depends on the remoter schemes and hopes of which it stands related. Its significance and framing give it the chief part of its value. Let it be known to lead nowhere, and however agreeable it may be in its immediacy, its glow and gilding vanish. The old man, sick with an insidious internal disease, may laugh and quaff his wine at first as well as ever, but he knows his fate now, for the doctors have revealed it, and the knowledge knocks the satisfaction out of all these functions. They are partners of death and the worm is their brother, and they turn to a mere flatness.”
James grew up a time when Darwinism was impeaching religion. He clearly struggled with what to believe and even considered suicide when nihilism seemingly peaked around 1870. But James became one of the pioneers of psychical research – an attempt to examine phenomena beyond the grasp of orthodox science. While the expressed motivation of the psychical researchers was to simply better understand it all, the unexpressed desire or subterfuge was to hopefully link it to a spirit world and thereby restore a belief in a larger life.
Escapism
As James Hyslop, a professor of logic and ethics at Columbia University before becoming a full-time psychical researcher in 1905, saw it, the majority of people in his time were interested in a future life because the promise was that they would be better off than they presently were. In the 1800s and early 1900s, life was not nearly as comfortable, luxurious, and hedonistic as it is now, and so a future life was to some extent an escape into a better life. However, modern technology, with all its conveniences and comforts, has diminished the appeal of the afterlife. Who wants to spend eternity strumming harps and singing praise to God while floating around on clouds when they could be escaping into countless television dramas or watching a good game and reclining on a soft couch with plates of Epicurean delights on the adjoining coffee table? It makes more sense to people today to worship movie actors, people pretending to be real people, and athletes, people pretending to be real combatants, than to worship God.
While making every effort to appreciate the objectives of religion, it was clear to Hyslop, that few people of his time were accepting the strong evidence he and others were gathering from their research in support of survival. The evidence was overwhelming and more recent research in near-death studies has taken it as close to “absolute certainty” that we can get. A little doubt, we have been told, is necessary for the divine plan to work.
Although such research supported the core teaching of religion, survival of the soul, the churches ignored it and stuck with the worship objective. The problem was that the research pointed to something more dynamic and consistent with a loving Creator than the humdrum heaven and horrific hell it had been teaching. Religion could not change it stance without admitting it was in error and had misinterpreted much of the early teachings, so it condemned the research and continued with its fear-based ideas and the worship folly. Now, more than a hundred years after the death of William James and James Hyslop, the research they carried out and further inspired continues to be ignored and the churches continue to fail.
Professor James also wrote: “The luster of the present hour is always borrowed from the background of possibilities it goes with. Let our common experiences be enveloped in an eternal moral order; let our suffering have an immortal significance; let Heaven smile upon the earth, and deities pay their visits; let faith and hope be the atmosphere which man breathes in; and his days pass by with zest; they stir with prospects, they thrill with remoter values. Place around them on the contrary the curdling cold and gloom and absence of all permanent meaning which for pure naturalism and the popular-science evolutionism of our time are all that is visible ultimately, and the thrill stops short, or turns rather to an anxious trembling.”
Next blog post: June 29
Michael Tymn is the author of The Afterlife Revealed: What Happens After We Die, Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife, Dead Men Talking: Afterlife Communication from World War I. and No One Really Dies: 25 Reasons to Believe in an Afterlife. His latest book Consciousness Beyond Death: New and Old Light on Near-Death Experiences is published by White Crow books.
.
Michael…
I never would have guessed that such deep waters were lurking within that head of yours. Kudos!
One of the first “names” you brought in was Kierkegaard. I still recall, with some embarrassment, as a college freshman picking up one of his works, I believe it was “Fear and Trembling”, and reading on the very first page….”What is the self? The self is that which relates itself to its own self…”. That’s as far as I got with Kierkegaard.
On the larger question you’re addressing: For myself, knowing, as we all do here, that “life goes on” on the Other Side is all the knowledge that I really need. Any additional details, while perhaps interesting, are merely ancillary. Life goes on. End of story. (Or beginning…)
Thanks, Don, For the most part, I agree with you on Kierkegaard, but here and there one can find some interesting stuff.
Michael,
Sometimes the church is interested in the afterlife, sometimes not. I like the following “Circular of a Society . . . Investigating Phenomena Popularly Called
Supernatural*
B. F. WESTCOTT (1825-1901), whose name appears at the end of
this circular, was a biblical scholar and respected bishop in the Church of
England. The circular is interesting only as a sign of the times; the Cambridge
group for the study of “supernatural” phenomena did not last very long, nor
did it produce any significant results. ”
Westcott was interested in collecting many sightings, such as Appearances of angels.
(1.) Good.
(2.) Evil.
There was little interest from people in this area of research. I have always thought about marketing with religious groups. You need “top of mind” so that each Church has to provide directions or a service that attracts followers. There could be a gap in the market for more afterlife Churches but the ones already there are fighting for market share.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce, I haven’t been a church-goer in many years, so I don’t know how much, if at all, they really get into afterlife matters. Based on my discussions with church-going friends and from what I see on the internet, they don’t discuss it at all. I suspect, however, that there are exceptions here and there.
Michael, As one who has had a near death experience, Your comments echo my thoughts on religion. I attempt to explain my beliefs in my book ‘Eternity Revisited’ (White Crow Books). Spirituality best describes the change. The total love and peace of the experience it totally void of anything negative; Guilt, fear or punishment are nonexistent.
Thanks, Joseph, and thank you for your very meaningful book.
Great article, Mike. From what I’ve observed, many people who go to church attend for social reasons and a sense of community. I’ve found my own community and a spiritual life that goes far beyond the bounds of any church. Regarding what comes from the pulpit, the inner beliefs of parishioners vary widely, from zero acceptance to total acceptance, and everything in between. In place of worship, as currently practiced in churches, I’d suggest a focus on gratitude, humility, and service. It seems any reasonable God would appreciate people striving for those attributes and self-development in general, much more than adoration.
Thanks, Mark. You hit the nail on the head. I must confess, however, that when I try to imagine a service without all the worship I can’t imagine enough to fill more 15-20 minutes a Sunday service.
Then maybe a 20 minute service would suffice, followed by interaction among people who didn’t know each other before, establishing new friendships.
Many people are secure in their spiritual identity without the compulsion to seek material evidence. To quote Hebrews 11.1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Of interest here is the notion that faith itself can serve as “the evidence of things not seen.” Science focuses exclusively on empirical facts to support its conclusions while faith may draw on intuition and inspiration as evidence.
My own interest in afterlife literature stems from spiritual influence and education in my youth. At one point in middle age I became a doubting Thomas that had to probe the wounds of the risen Christ. Seeking external confirmation of my weakened faith was part of what spurred my interest in NDEs and later Spiritualism. I no longer need physical facts to shore up a shaky faith. There is the practical matter of thinning the veil that obscures the spiritual realm that surrounds us. For the materially minded and those who have lost faith, the abundant evidence that points to the “eternal moral order” in which we are enveloped, may serve as guideposts towards the experience of “an immortal significance.” At the same time, I respect those secure in their spiritual identity such that external confirmation is unnecessary.
Worship is a particular expression of love, best directed towards a transcendent source rather than a mortal object of deification. We may, rightly, celebrate the virtue and excellence of others as exemplifying eternal qualities without indulging in hero worship. The eternal spirit alone is worthy of our highest and deepest expression of love.
Thank you, David. So much of it all is in the semantics.
Well said, David. We’re in a similar place, I suspect, blending Christian thought with spiritualist insight. I assume you’re familiar with the classic spiritualist text that does this in spades: “Spirit Teachings” c/o Anglican cleric and medium Stainton Moses.
“Spirit Teachings” was the first piece of Spiritualist literature that I encountered. It remains amongst my favorites.
I couldn’t help but notice that the high angel with the pen name Imperator said through cleric/medium Stainton Moses some things about God and man in “Spirit Teachings” that mirror, modify, or challenge, in part, portions of Michael’s musing, to wit:
“As to the relation between man and his God, it should be that which befits the approach of a being in one of the lowest stages of existence to the Fountain of Uncreated Light, to the great Author and Father of all. The befitting attitude of spirit before God is typified for you in the language of your sacred records when it is said that the exalted ones veil their faces with their wings as they bow before His throne. This in a figure symbolizes the REVERENCE and ADORATION which best become the spirit of man. Reverence and awe, not slavish fear. Adoring worship, not cowering, prostrate dread.
Mindful of the vast distance that must separate God from man, and of the intermediary agencies which minister between the Most High and His children, man should not seek to intrude himself into the presence of the Supreme, least of all should he obtrude his curiosity, and seek to pry into mysteries which are too deep for angel-minds to grasp. REVERENCE, ADORATION, LOVE: these are the qualities that adorn a spirit in its relation to its God.”
Again let me emphasize that what “Spirit Teachings” brought home to me, a liberal Protestant clergyman, was this revelation about “the intermediary agencies” between God and man, how God has set things up so as to work in this world primarily through the angels, the spirits of departed human beings who can do much to guide us and strengthen us and even give things a nudge in our favor, but who are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Christian theologians have yet to pick up on the progress this revelation offers in grappling with the problem of evil.
By no means do I believe the reverence and praise part of it should be eliminated. I hold Jesus in high esteem, God, part of God, or no God. I consider myself a Jeffersonian Christian, or a “true Christian.”
Dear Mike,
This is an unusually wide-ranging post, but it touches upon several matters that seem to me absolutely fundamental. I agree with much of your diagnosis, particularly your recognition of the nihilistic character of the modern worldview and your criticism of the churches for failing to engage seriously with the evidence for survival gathered through psychical research. I also agree that the picture of a pompous deity demanding praise and flattery is intellectually and spiritually repellent. But I think the question of worship requires a broader formulation.
Surely the principal question is not what God receives from worship, but what the human being becomes through worship. God, conceived as the fullness and source of Being, cannot lack anything that human praise might supply. Worship is not required because God needs praise; it is required because the human being needs orientation.
Prayer, praise, adoration, contemplation, remembrance, surrender and devotion are different modes by which the finite being turns toward its source and end. They educate attention, desire, will and love. Their purpose is not to change God’s opinion of us, but to change our condition of being. In this sense worship is ontological and formative before it is ceremonial.
This becomes especially important when considered alongside the broad testimony of the discarnate literature. That literature repeatedly suggests that the soul gravitates after death toward conditions corresponding to its inward quality. The soul is what it loves, and in a very real sense the soul inhabits what it loves. Worship, properly understood, is therefore the deliberate education and orientation of love.
Psychical research and religion also seem to perform related but distinguishable functions. Psychical research asks whether consciousness survives and what conditions appear to prevail after death. Religion, at its best, asks what the human being is for and what the soul must become. Psychical research may establish that the road continues beyond death; religion concerns the direction in which the traveler is moving.
Evidence of survival is enormously important, but survival alone does not confer wisdom, goodness or spiritual maturity. Death continues the person; it does not automatically transform the person. A surviving ego may remain selfish, confused, trivial or vicious. Accurate information about the afterlife is therefore valuable, but it is not identical with preparation for the afterlife.
The same distinction may help us to assess the traditional religious teachings concerning heaven and hell. Their imagery has often been crude, overly literal or inadequate when compared with the richer discarnate accounts. External judgment becomes self-judgment or spiritual gravitation; fixed places become states of consciousness; an everlasting penal hell becomes a self-created but potentially reparable condition; and a static heaven becomes a graded and continuing life of education, service and development.
Yet in broad outline the religions have not necessarily got the matter wrong. They have taught that consciousness survives, that souls do not all enter the same condition, that postmortem destiny corresponds in some manner to inward character, and that love, virtue and spiritual development conduce toward felicity while selfishness, hatred and vice produce deprivation and suffering. The religions may often have mistaken symbolic maps for literal geography, but their central claim – that the quality of the soul entails a corresponding destiny – is strongly confirmed by the discarnate testimony.
This leads to what may be the most important distinction of all: the difference between the soul’s conceptual map and the direction in which the soul has actually been formed.
A very simple Christian may hold highly inaccurate ideas about the next world. He may expect a literal throne, an externally pronounced judgment or an immediate and unchanging heaven. Most of that imagery may require correction. Yet if, through prayer, repentance, gratitude, charity, reverence and service, he has sincerely sought to love God and neighbor, he may have acquired precisely the dispositions needed for healthy postmortem development: humility before a greater Reality, willingness to receive instruction, aspiration toward goodness, habituation to self-examination and some capacity for surrender and service.
His images may fall away while the spiritual formation accomplished through them remains. He may not have learned what the next world looks like, but he may have learned how to turn toward the Light when it appears.
One need not possess an accurate anticipation of the next world in order to possess a character adequate to it. Conversely, accurate anticipation does not guarantee spiritual adequacy. A person may know a great deal about planes, vibrations, self-judgment and spiritual progression while remaining inwardly selfish, vain, resentful or inert.
An error concerning the scenery of the road may be less serious than an error concerning the destination – or a refusal to travel at all.
The proper secular analogue would be the scientist or philosopher who genuinely loves truth. Such a person submits preferred ideas to evidence and acknowledges an authority beyond the private ego. He may deny survival because the evidence available to him appears insufficient, yet if he truly loves truth more than his own conclusions, survival itself becomes new evidence. He may discover that he was wrong about the nature of Reality without having been wrong to seek Reality.
That orientation is structurally akin to religious surrender. But here, as in religion, discrimination is needed. Many who claim to love truth may actually love intellectual mastery, professional status, argumentative victory, membership in an enlightened class or the feeling of being undeceived. Likewise, a person may appear to love God while actually loving certainty, communal belonging, authority, reward or the condemnation of outsiders.
A theologian may worship his own theology. A scientist may worship his own rationality. A simple believer may genuinely love God. An atheist may genuinely love truth and justice. The outward labels do not settle the inward question.
One particularly useful criterion may therefore be corrigibility: can the person receive a greater disclosure of Reality when it contradicts his established understanding?
The sincere Christian who loves God more than his picture of God can surrender the picture. The sincere scientist who loves truth more than materialism can surrender materialism. The dogmatist – religious or secular – cannot easily do this because his worldview has become fused with identity, pride and security.
This also raises a question about the frequent warning in the discarnate literature that religious believers may become enclosed within narrow, self-created heavens. The warning may be valid, but the governing principle cannot logically apply only to religion. If thought, desire, identification and affinity help constitute postmortem environment, then every rigid worldview or ruling attachment may become an enclosure: materialism, political ideology, nationalism, resentment, professional identity, appetite, social status, intellectual superiority, distraction or entertainment.
The religious enclosure is only one species of a much larger genus. Every soul tends to inhabit the world created by its ruling loves, assumptions, attachments and identifications.
Nor is the proper alternative to dogmatism a kind of woolly open-mindedness, indefinite suspension of judgment or refusal to hold firm views. The discarnate material certainly does not counsel us simply not to think about these matters or never to commit ourselves. Its repeated injunctions concern aspiration, purification, love, service, self-knowledge, discipline of thought and orientation toward higher reality. These require positive direction.
The opposite of dogmatism is not convictionlessness. It is conviction ordered toward Reality rather than toward the preservation of one’s own conceptual system.
A perpetually open mind that never comes to judgment, commitment or orientation is like a door that remains open but through which no one ever passes. Open-mindedness is an intellectual virtue because it permits recognition of truth. But once truth is sufficiently recognized, it should begin to shape conduct, desire and character.
The adequate attitude therefore seems to require three qualities: firmness, ardor and corrigibility. Without firmness, there is vagueness. Without ardor, there is lukewarmness. Without corrigibility, there is dogmatism.
Lukewarmness itself is not necessarily neutrality. A person who avoids all ultimate commitment may still possess a ruling love – perhaps comfort, distraction, conformity, self-protection or the desire never to be claimed by anything higher. Even having no commitments can become a commitment. The solution to misdirected ardor is therefore not the absence of ardor, but purified ardor. The soul does not need less fire; it needs fire directed toward what is Real.
Perhaps the best preparation for death can therefore be stated in this way: seek the truest understanding available to you; commit yourself to it deeply enough that it shapes your ruling love and quality of being; but remain willing for every finite conception to be enlarged, corrected or surpassed by a fuller disclosure of Reality.
The deepest opposition is not between religious believers and secular rationalists, nor between those who hold convictions and those who remain “open-minded.” It is between the closed or unformed soul and the soul that has become ardently, humbly and corrigibly oriented toward the Real.
Such a soul may possess imperfect knowledge, as all earthly souls inevitably do, yet still be well prepared to recognize, welcome and advance into greater Light.
Best,
Paul
Paul, I think we are in agreement. As I mentioned above, I consider myself a Jeffersonian Christian, the same as Thomas Jefferson, third president of the U.S. I also wonder what would be done at Sunday service if we took all the praise and adoration out of it. Replacing it with clairvoyant attempts to contact loved ones, as they do in Spiritualist churches, wouldn’t work and would be a mistake. In discussing extremes, we often neglect the middle.
Such a long comment. Yet not a word wasted, not a thought expressed but an edifying one. Thank you, Paul, for taking the time and expending the effort to make this outstanding contribution to Michael’s marvelous blog.
Two additional thoughts about theological disagreement. The first is that of William James, who said that when it comes to the big metaphysical questions, we humans are like dogs and cats in a library, staring at shelves of books. The second thought is that often expressed by polymath Iain McGilchrist, who notes that in this same area of the great metaphysical questions, the opposite of one profoundly true idea is often another one.
I love your comment about dogs and cats in a library. The exact quote from James’ Pragmatism is “We may be in the universe as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all.” This fits in with the prior quote from Spirit teaching about “being in one of the lowest stages of existence” and that humility is not merely a virtue but a necessity with respect to having any “inkling of the meaning of it all.”
There are many fine points raised in Paul’s comment but I noted particularly “Worship is not required because God needs praise; it is required because the human being needs orientation.” It seems as we go about our daily activities that we must always look down, at the ground as we walk and at all of the external affairs that occupy our time. Worship, whatever that may look like, is a deliberate effort to look up, whether through ritual, music, an inspirational text, etc. Having acquired the habit of looking up, we may develop a kind of x-ray vision that allows us to see through humdrum happenings in order to catch a glimpse of the light within.
I read an on-line article yesterday about what prompted U.S. Vice-President to convert to Catholicism. It saddened me to see all the negative comments by Protestants, e.g., Catholics pray to Mary, Only Jesus can save, etc. I see most of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism as insignificant in the bigger picture but the many comments I saw suggest that many Protestants see Catholicism as an enemy. If Christianity causes so much turmoil within itself, it seems unlikely that advances will be made.
The whole concept of “worship” reflects the fact that Christian theology was composed in the patriarchal and authoritarian world of the Roman Empire in the 4th century AD. The Nicaean Creed, which has always been the foundation for Catholic and Protestant theology, was composed under the tyrannical emperor Constantine in AD 325, and “God” came to be seen as a Heavenly projection of an authoritarian Earthly ruler. This basically Old Testament understanding of God was rejected by a number of early Christian thinkers such as Marcion and Valentinus, who emphasised the Platonic nature of Jesus’ teachings (the gospels were written in Greek) but these people were eventually marginalized as ‘heretics’ and sidelined from the orthodox church.
The result of this is that the churches today, except for a minority, have preserved a primitive, retributionist understanding of God, which is rightly unacceptable to the majority of intelligent people in our modern Western societies. The growing gulf between institutional religion and expansive spirituality, which is so evident today in the West, is likely to see the demise of most of the Christian denominations within the next 50-100 years, if present trends continue, as they seem likely to do.
Thank you, Rex. You covered that part much better than I did.
Mike,
You know more about the different philosophers, psychiatrists, etc. and their theories than me. However, here are my thoughts. Worship – as you wrote can be done in a variety of ways.
To me, one can just be in humble awe of the immensity and grandeur of creation AND the perfect natural laws of the First Cause/ Supreme Intelligence, that I completely believe exists, as do the numerous spirits down through the ages have communicated also state exists.
Superior spirits have stated numerous times that the good acts of a person (not their beliefs or unbelief or rites or rituals, etc.) are better than any form of worship because the purpose is for the soul is to evolve. And that can only be obtained through the constant practice of goodness.
The goal is soul evolution, the betterment of self.
With HUMILITY, LOVE AND CHARITY towards all. The main enemies of these are PRIDE, SELFISHNESS AND GREED.
If the main teaching of Jesus is to be accepted (the spirit world has emphasized that it should be), he said, “Love God above all else, and others as yourself.”
He said “love God.” That is a form of worship. A sincere acknowledgement, a humble reverence and a thankfulness, of and for, the Creator of all things.
The good spirits help us when we are in difficulty via the Divine Will and the Divine laws.
We reap what we deserve and sow.
*****
All that said, spirits in both the material and spirit worlds are at differing levels of comprehension of spirituality and knowledge of the divine. They all must be learn about morality in order to progress and evolve; what are beneficial actions and what are poor, harmful, and wrongful actions.
Like attracts like. People form groups according to their tastes and what they feel they need, and there are leaders and followers. Some people need the traditional churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. with the elders to think and tell them what to do…”to save their souls”…for so many all they want/need is what gives them comfort or makes them feel safe; their afterlife is “heaven” (a place they believe they will find peace), and want to feel they are fulfilling their religious duty to the God they believe in (or not).
Explanation of an afterlife of great depth, many would find too complicated.
And, institutions want to keep their jobs and power. Yet, among them are those who are sincere, spiritual and feel they are nurturing they’re flock. They teach humbly… love, charity, peace. To be a good person. And, that’s the most important thing.
Most institutions are a patriarchal system. The Creator is designated a “Father.” Microcosm of the family… same as with a Church.
And that is ok, because that is their level. If eventually people don’t feel they fit, they quit and/or move on. This is easier to do these days.
Even atheism is not so stigmatized.
And, traditional religious institution can change, but very slowly….
One of the largest religious schisms in American history was the schism (2019-2023) of the United Methodist Church (over LGBTQ+ inclusion, same sex marriage and the ordination LGBTQ+ clergy. This had not occurred since the churches split on the subject of slavery.
The Catholic Church has made some changes: Encyclical on technology; increased participation of the laity, better attitude towards non-Catholics and other religions, addressing environmental issues.
As church attendance declines… the soul still searches SPIRITUALITY and tries to find what works for them. See the link below:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/12/07/spirituality-among-americans/ (for the following)
“In recent decades, Americans have become less likely to identify with an organized religion. Yet a new Pew Research Center survey shows that belief in spirits or a spiritual realm beyond this world is widespread, even among those who don’t consider themselves religious. The survey finds that:
83% of all U.S. adults believe people have a soul or spirit in addition to their physical body.
81% say there is something spiritual beyond the natural world, even if we cannot see it.
74% say there are some things that science cannot possibly explain.
45% say they have had a sudden feeling of connection with something from beyond this world.
38% say they have had a strong feeling that someone who has passed away was communicating with them from beyond this world.
30% say they have personally encountered a spirit or unseen spiritual force.
Overall, 70% of U.S. adults can be considered “spiritual” in some way, because they think of themselves as spiritual people or say spirituality is very important in their lives.”
Many of the above group, when speak of God, they say a Higher Power.
Since it is in our nature as spiritual beings, people are always seeking.
Many are receiving spiritual sustenance via non-traditional spiritual traditionals and organizations (like AA, neopaganism, and others)… sometimes using a mixture or doing their own thing.
A few last comments…
In conclusion, as we see the wide variety of humanity and their various levels of intellect and morals, for a reincarnationist, one lifetime is not enough for the soul to evolve. We progress on our own efforts.
And so, as humanity changes and progresses spiritually, intellectually, morally their organizations, beliefs and practices change to accommodate their needs.
Progress cannot be forced.
Most Respectfully,
Yvonne Limoges
Paul, Newton, Michael et alia,
I did like “One particularly useful criterion may therefore be corrigibility: can the person receive a greater disclosure of Reality when it contradicts his established understanding?” I call this Spiritual Transformation.
The mechanisms, such as afterlife conversations, NDEs and reincarnation (all part of the survival group) provide impetus for this move to the next picture.
I think that Michael sees the demonstration in the Spiritualist churches as not providing this spiritual transformation. The demonstration is usually wrapped up with a “sermon” on transformation.
Most attendees don’t want a sermon but the message. Think of the message as a door opener. If you can have a burst of Spirit Teachings to follow, I think we can agree that we have formed a church here on this blog. The church is the people and the comments here are those of the seekers for the next picture or disclosure.
The famous Latin quote “If you seek his monument, look around you” is “Si monumentum requiris, circumspice,” from the epitaph for Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London.
I used to teach business and use his story of the three bricklayers.
“While walking the construction site, Wren reportedly asked three different masons doing the same work what they were doing. Their responses:
The First Builder: “I am a bricklayer. I’m working hard laying bricks to feed my family.” (Views the work as a mere job for survival.)
The Second Builder: “I am a builder. I’m building a wall.” (Views the work as a career or a specific craft.)
The Third Builder: “I am a cathedral builder. I am building a great cathedral to The Almighty.” (Views the work as a calling connected to a grand, meaningful vision.)
I believe that we have a group of the third type of builders.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce,
I confess that I haven’t been to more than a few Spiritualist services in my lifetime. All I remember about those I did attend — in London, Phoenix, and one or two other places — were attempts at clairvoyant readings which were very general and hardly convincing. I don’t recall any sermons. I shouldn’t judge based on so few. My interest in mediumship was triggered by the evidential aspect. I never had any interest in hearing from deceased loved ones and I struggle somewhat to understand Spiritualists who have a need to hear from them continuously.
Michael, thanks for sharing your insights.
Reading through the comments I find myself in a rather lonely position.
As a very young child I had a strong spiritual intuition that was clearly out of synch with my Catholic upbringing. My interest in “the big questions” lead me to a Philosophy Major in College and then, somewhat incongruously, into a career in Investment Mgmt.
In 2014 my Wife and I suddenly lost our 13 year old adopted son Cameron to undiagnosed Cardiomyopathy. He died in his sleep at age 13.
Seeking some meaning as we reeled from that loss lead me to join Seattle IANDS. In turn I began a multiple year journey reading many books on NDE’s, Psychical Research, writings of Carl Jung etc. etc. Those efforts were rewarded with a renewed sense of spirituality and purpose.
In 2019 my beloved wife of 25 years was diagnosed with ALS. Having learned of our love of Travel, Bonnie’s Neurologist suggested we get our affairs in order and travel while it was still practical.
Three months later the Covid Pandemic arrived. World travel was not to be.
I cared for my wife each and every day until the end of her long brutal struggle with ALS. Bonnie died in January of 2014.
Having lost a Son and beloved wife, our family of four has been reduced to me and my adult Daughter Emma.
Such a long strange trip it’s been.
I am now 65 years old, 10 years comfortably retired, living in a world less sane and recognizable each and every day. I still have a strong intuitive sense of Spirituality and yet now sit solidly in the camp of Misotheists.
Worship?
Visceral hatred is nearer the mark.
Correction- Bonnie Died in 2024.