Convergence

By Walt Marston

(In the context of conversation within our Quaker community)

This is a word that can be used in many ways and may be misunderstood in today’s religious contexts. It is related to emergence and post-modernism. Let’s start with post-modernism. What is that? Some people see this negatively as a pluralistic, relativistic (anyone’s truth is just as valid as anyone else’s) fad or trend. Some who see it this way also suggest the dangers of syncretism – that by embracing all religions as equally valid, or by trying to incorporate too many elements of different religions into our own, we are watering down our religion, making it less meaningful.

This is not what post-modernism (and emergence/convergence) is all about. Post-modernism in the most positive sense is based on a realization that our relationship to God and each other is a dynamic one. Modernism represents very linear, Newtonian, systems with rigid structures; and the modern church, even as it often preaches against the evils of secular modernism, is in itself a modern institution and its structures and belief systems reflect that of the prevailing culture (Think of the modern marketing strategies employed by so many churches to grow their numbers and expand their influence). Even though we’re moving into a post-modern era, we’re not far into it yet, so most of our institutions (especially churches) are still stuck in paradigms of modernism.

The modern era has predominated for over three centuries but peaked with great intensity in the late 20th Century. An important characteristic of modernism is “objectivism.” I like the following description: “The Newtonian worldview has it that there is one right or best answer to our problems and that everything can be objectively determined.” (Dialogue, Linda Ellinor and Glenna Gerard, Page 52)

An illustration of this comes to mind in reflecting upon “The Fog of War,” a recent documentary in which Robert McNamara reflects upon his role in the cold war era, and particularly the “hot” war in Vietnam. To me it is striking that an individual (a business and systems whiz kid) is recruited to develop an objective strategy that should have every action and consequence so accurately planned and predicted that it cannot fail – that there is an objective solution to winning a war, or achieving any objective. The fallacies and limitations of this “modern” thinking are so vividly portrayed in this film, even though it seems that in his 80’s McNamara is saddened by his failure, but still convinced that “rationality” is the answer to any problem.

Post-modernism is a new era in world society – shifting from the straight lines and rigid structures of the modern era to a more dynamic interactive view of the nature of things, based on relationship.

Post modernism in a religious or spiritual sense is attempting to move closer to a relational and dynamic understanding of God and our relationships to one another. In many ways, Quakerism has always been post-modern (or in some respects pre-modern). The so-called “emergent” movement or conversation is actually moving closer to our Quaker way of seeing things.

Post-modern and “emergence” go together. Emergence does not discard the older Newtonian systems altogether, but builds on them, emerging into a more expansive understanding based on relationships rather than on structures.

Likewise, the so-called emergent churches are not totally rejecting the modern church of their youth, but rather emerging into something better based on relationships (not just structures and linearity – old notions of cause and effect).

Convergence is something that can only come after a period of emergence from within various groups (a dialogic process involving a period of divergence, listening to one another’s differences, and finding common frameworks of understanding).

Then, there comes realization of shared truths and a convergence on a higher level (some would say a mystical level) based on a greatly enhanced understanding of shared values. This does not mean syncretism or dilution of one’s beliefs but rather a convergence of spirit in those matters that are most important.

My experience as an ecumenical-minded Quaker has been one of encouraging and honoring the emergence of greater understanding and relationships from within many faith traditions, followed by a convergence of important viewpoints on a higher spiritual level across traditions. Even as I use the words “followed by” I am reminded that this is not a linear process. Emergence and convergence are occurring cyclically and sometimes concurrently (Teilhard de Chardin’s spiral toward Christ?) as we become more aware in our relationships with God and each other. This is very gratifying when it occurs, an emerging grace. It is a continuous process, though, forged in relationship resulting from conversation and dialogue across boundaries that we might never have imagined could be crossed.

For me, convergence is not a place that I have reached or a state that I have attained, but rather something that I am always seeking – emerging and converging on multiple levels, but never forgetting or forsaking the foundations of my faith, the beginnings of my journey, and points along the way.

This is the glorious and remarkable way the Spirit is working in the post-modern era.

Non-Theism: An Outmoded Concept?

By Walt Marston

(Arising from conversations within our Quaker community)

I always find it interesting how people use labels to describe themselves and then how others react to these labels. The trouble with labels is that they mean different things to different people. I believe this is the case with the terms theist and non-theist.

I suppose there may be those who do not believe in any kind of God and find non-theist a less harsh label to apply to themselves than atheist. But I suspect that many who call themselves non-theists believe in God, just not the kind of God they were taught to believe in growing up.

This even applies to many who call themselves atheists. They believe in a “higher” power or source of life, but they don’t want to call it God because that name connotes images of a jealous and vengeful male personage “out there” somewhere who is all about rewards and punishments. I don’t believe in that kind of God, either, but I am not an atheist or a non-theist. I do believe in God, but the word God is a label for the transcendent unknowable force – the source of life that brings forth the physical universe and continuously sustains it. I think of this as more of a Presence or Spirit than a person. In fact the Judaic-Christian Scriptures say God is Spirit and is to be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth.

My old Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1998, defines theism as: “belief in the existence of one God viewed as a creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.” One could say this posits a God who is a person (or being). Yet even those who believe this would realize that for God to be greater than its creation and to be omnipresent within its creation, it would have to be more of a pervasive presence or spirit than a being. However, this is where the concept of God “the son” comes in, as God manifested in a human form like ours.

God is both transcendent and immanent – beyond its creation and also completely within and throughout it. There is nowhere God is not.

I recently saw a brochure for a church named Extended Grace, in Grand Haven, Michigan. Inside it describes the “3-2-1 of God” as follows:

“We celebrate God in the third person, second person and first person.
· The third person of God is that which transcends anything we can grasp or imagine. God as Creator, Trinity, Ruach, Mystery.
· The second person of God is relational and personal. Our Mother/Father God, Personal Savior, Beloved Bridegroom, the God who meets us when we are in the depths of despair.
· The first person of God is the face of our own True Self. We know we are only fully who we are meant to be when we are finally fully infused with Spirit, the Kingdom Within, Christ Consciousness, home of God’s indwelling Spirit.”

While my choice of words might be somewhat different, I think this does a wonderful job of depicting the levels or aspects of God. People who need to think of God in just one way, particularly as a person “out there,” often have problems relating to God in a personal way because this is a Power that must be pleased and a relationship that must be somehow evoked. The reality is more seamless and natural than that. I believe God is never separate from us, except in our consciousness, but this is difficult to realize.

It’s been said that the only “body” God has is ours. We are his body, his hands and feet. To the extent that we realize and employ the power of God which is everywhere around us and within us – that created and sustains us – we manifest our true nature as children of God.

So, while Quakers are usually theists and Christian, one does not have to subscribe to an old orthodox belief system in order to be either. To call oneself “non-theist” I believe is usually just a way of distinguishing oneself from those who’s concept of God is too narrow (that is, the old man – the patriarch—in the sky, and therefore a patriarchal view of God and our relationship to God).

I certainly hope that most of us have transcended that outmoded notion (of the patriarch) and traded it for one that is unlimited in scope and an unconditional source of power and love in our lives.