Definitions - Paragraph 1 and 2; Religion - Paragraph 1
Now we’ll look at a couple of definitions offered by Roberts along with an idea she calls authentic religion. Here’s her text:
“Definitions
The key terms used in this paper are “religion,” “God,” and “revelation.” Because these terms are so entwined, however, they cannot be defined apart from one another. Nevertheless, we will say something about how these terms are used in their present context.
Every revelation has two sides: God the giver, man the receiver. Putting the two sides together, we have “religion.” Thus we might think of religion as a single coin. As the giver of revelation, God’s side is both the act of revelation and “what” is revealed, while man’s side is the receiver and experiencer of the revelation. Thus God, or “what” is revealed, is the objective side of religion, while man and his experience is its subjective side. Because the history of our religions are equally the history of God’s revelation, the terms “religion” and “revelation” are all but synonymous. Thus the title of this paper might just as well have been “the spiritual journey of each individual recapitulates the history of God’s revelation to man.”
Religion
Since I hold there is no authentic religion without revelation, my definition of religion is limited to “God’s revelation to man.” Had God not revealed Himself we would not know God exists and, consequently, no authentic “religion” would exist. Whatever man can discover on his own has no need to be revealed, only “that” which is truly transcendent to man must be revealed to him. Thus “God” is “that” which can only be revealed. “What” is revealed, then, becomes the keystone of a religion and, as such, is the primary focus of our thesis.”
How do I understand what Roberts says here? First, I appreciate her definition of “religion.” At its simplest, there is a giver and a receiver. The second interesting point is her thought that there would be no religion if there was nothing to discover beyond what we can already know.
Let’s look at giving and receiving first. I would like to call this an exchange. If this exchange were absent I hear Roberts saying that there would then be no religion or revelation. What exchange means for me is the capacity to receive (God) with an awareness that I’m receiving something beyond my means of knowing. An example of a life without much exchange would be the life of an amoeba. Granted, the amoeba is receiving life as evidenced by its existence, but it does so without any subjective or reflective knowledge of its receiving existence. Humans, however, are not amoebas, there is subjectivity of receiving which we can reflect upon. Therefore, God offers objective revelation to us and we receive it subjectively, according to our understanding. This reciprocity is, in my mind, an exchange.
The second point of interest is this notion that authentic religion is not based on “whatever man can discover on his own” but is only that “which is truly transcendent to man” and “must be revealed to him.” This thought is actually quite extraordinary. It brings up two questions for me. First, what is it that humans can discover on their own and, two, what is transcendence from the human perspective? The more I ponder this the more personal it becomes. My hunch is that if you asked 1,000 people these two questions you would get 1,000 different answers.
All I can do is answer for myself. What I can discover for myself includes many things; it is mind boggling. In this day and age, with the internet at our fingertips, the things we can find out is astronomical. But, I am acutely aware that there are things I don’t know or understand nor could ever figure out no matter how hard I try. For instance, when the trees or mountains speak to me who can figure this out? The speaking, of course, is not actual audible words, yet these elements can speak (words) into the depth of me. I know something mysterious is happening but could not tell you what. When I ponder this phenomenon the word transcendent comes to mind. And what I next ponder is how to cultivate more attunement to this Transcendence?
So, Robert’s words invite me to consider the connection between the exchange and transcendence. The more aware I can become of the exchange, the intentional living of giving and receiving, the more open I become to the possibility of encounter. Obviously each day holds limitless exchanges, thus limitless encounters, yet how many am I present to? In all honesty, not many. I am often on autopilot or, worse yet, caught up in my filtered perceptions of the world. Nothing new can break in because my view of the world is reified.
This leads back to the first point that any revelation I may receive will be filtered through my upbringing, cultural milieu, trauma, etc. There is no right or wrong about this filter, it is just the truth of the matter. Practice then becomes understanding I have filters and intentionally becoming more aware of when and where those filters are operating. There are many ways to become aware of filters including meditation, therapy, breath work, and body work. For myself the Enneagram has been helpful in revealing how my personality reifies the world and it offers assistance in relaxing (surrendering) filters which I insist are true but are not.
My take away today is to understand that revelation can not come through a reified concept, which helps me relax into my intention of living an allowing life. Revelation only presents itself in the open and allowing space, one where it can’t be boxed in. I’ve said this before, but living openly entails is a lot of falling down (everyday) and a lot of getting up (most days). I’m committed to this way of life because nothing is sweeter than trees whispering their secrets to me.
