the yardsticks of belief
It is undeniable that very many people have what may be called 'religious
experiences'. Seeking to fit those experiences within a framework
of established thought, or in some other way search out an understanding
or explanation of them, may prompt a turning to one or another of
the orthodox religious movements.
Alternatively, and perhaps even in the absence of a profound religious experience, others seem drawn to the world of religion, maybe seeking some comfort or solace, an explanation of Creation, or simply in recognition of the strong sense that 'there must be more to Life than this'.
And then finally there are those who are born into a specific religious environment, submitted without freedom of choice to its ethic, and the consequent cultural conditioning.
The established religious movements still represent the principal home for those with spiritual aspirations but, as Time unfolds, these movements find themselves in increasing disarray, unable to persuade, convince, or satisfy ever-larger numbers of existing and potential adherents.
Sadly, this 'lack of credibility' often causes a turning away from religion as a whole; a reaction that, in the longer term, rents the spirit and can cause numerous problems in the psyche. It is as though we all need some spiritual foundation or root and, if we remove ourselves therefrom, we become as withered leaves, tossed hither and there by every passing breeze.
Such total turning away can occur because of confusion about the term
'religion' itself. Religion, and the religious experience, is not
the Christian Church, the Jewish Synagogue, the Islamic Mosque, the
Hindu Temple or whatever, neither is it the movements that
gave birth to those institutions.
Notwithstanding their 'holy tracts', all of these are simply man-made
expressions and interpretations of the religious experience.
Religion is no more or less than our recognition of a state that transcends
the purely physical/material, yet bears intimate relevance for us
in the sense of providing a model for behaviour and a framework wherein
the physical/material realm is given meaning.
Thus, a 'spiritual experience' is any experience that seems unconnected to physical reality, or that takes us beyond physical reality, whereas a 'religious experience' is that same thing but with the added dimension of 'divine presence'. That is to say, accompanied by a sense of some 'human-transcending intelligence', some 'guiding hand' or the working of some pre-ordained plan directed by a trans-dimensional intelligence.
That the established religious movements are falling into disarray
may not be entirely unconnected to the continuing growth of 'alternative
religions' or, more accurately, 'alternative religious movements'.
These are simply manifestations of our acknowledgement that the established
religious movements have lost their credibility, and our recognition
that nevertheless we do not wholly reject, nor indeed can afford to
reject, the notion of a humanity with a spiritual, and even divine,
foundation.
(That the current crop of 'alternative religions' may, in centuries
to come, become established or 'orthodox' is neither here nor there.)
However, for those seeking a new framework within which to locate and develop their experience of religion, the plethora of choice is confusing to say the least. We can opt for one of the established movements (providing their credibility has not been totally undermined for us), or we can look to the minority alternatives, or we can even seek to construct our own, guided by our own insights and experiences, and perhaps borrowing here and there whatever elements appear credible.
But, whatever our approach, certain features are almost mandatory. We seek conviction (with the attendant requirement of credibility of course); we seek acceptance; we need to feel that our choice is 'right', and indeed that we are 'right'.
So what should we look for in a religious movement or theory (aside
from the obvious requirement that it should feel 'right' to us)?
After many years of contemplating these very issues, the Fellowship
has finally developed a set of 'guidelines' that may be found useful.
They should not be regarded as fully comprehensive but they are, we
suggest, a 'starting point' enabling a reasoned approach to assessing
the validity, authenticity, and credibility of religious movements.
Curiously, it has emerged that neither 'evidentiary proofs' nor the claimed presence of a 'divine figure' at the forefront are of much significance. Rather, we now postulate certain fundamental qualities that should permeate the doctrines and practises of any given religious movement.
(this embraces the notion that they should advocate those things that are conducive to good health)
Supportive of diversity
(accommodating different and maybe even mutually exclusive viewpoints; no single religious movement, given that such are only the understandings and interpretations of fallible humankind, can ever claim to be the only movement in possession of 'the Truth'. Similarly, and for the same reason, no single religious movement can claim to be in exclusive possession of the 'Right Way')
Self-regenerating
(this implies the notion of "rigorousness" or the ability to survive — a sort of spontaneous reappearance throughout the ages. If an insight or experience is true and valid it will be accessible to different people at different times and in a variety of circumstances, all separate from and independent of each other. Any concept or entity possessing this sort of quality will not, by definition, need to seek converts, or use compulsion to secure adherents, for it is its own best witness. Thus a genuine and true religious 'insight' can never actually 'die'; it may reappear in different guises to be sure, but reappear it must. That many of these 'insights' are embraced within established religious movements should not blind us to the fact that, whilst the insight may be authentic, the movement espousing it is not necessarily so)
Proliferation
(this of course follows on from the foregoing quality of self-regeneration. If an experience or insight is self-regenerating then it must inevitably proliferate or spread, even though there may be times when it appears to be in abeyance, or to have even been completely eradicated. Moreover, this proliferation requires no ego-driven intervention, and so here we have yet another argument against the supposed need to seek followers, converts, or 'disciples')
Accessibility
(requires no intermediaries but may be experienced directly by the individual. Accessibility to a given religious experience should not rest upon some allegedly historical event or personage as we are then compelled to rely upon something outside of ourselves for our 'salvation'; this has the aura of a politician saying "Trust me" about it. A credible and authentic religious movement must be able to point the way to religious experiences that can be accessed in the "here and now", by the individual, independent of that religious movement or its adherents)
Unifying
(any religious movement that advocates notions that are divisive must be regarded with a degree of scepticism. The yardsticks of Diversity and Proliferation imply the coming into being, and existence of, alternatives. Thus, an authentic religious movement should in some way embrace the quality of reconciliation for these alternatives, which 'embracing' can be regarded as a unifying impulse. Divisiveness exists where one person or thing is set against another as distinct from the principle of co-existence)
Life-affirming
(this is the overarching quality from which all the others derive. However, care must be exercised not to interpret it in a purely anthropocentric manner. That is to say, affirmation of the overarching impulse to Life may not always be in what are regarded as the 'best interests' of Man as a species. Insofar as the quality of Life extends way beyond the circumscribed realm of Mankind, of necessity we must, if we are to truly affirm Life, look beyond ourselves)
Interestingly, many of the so-called 'Pagan' religious movements seem to embrace more of these qualities (if not all) than do the 'conventional' movements. This may be a reflection upon the validity of the conventional movements, or a symptom of change in our needs as a species. Perhaps we are 'growing up', and are now beginning to prefer the appeal to reason rather than the firm hand of the disciplinarian (which is the approach most of the conventional movements appear to adopt).
Arguably one of the best definitions of contemporary Paganism may be found in Prudence Jones' contribution to the book "Pagan Pathways". She explains that, for her, a Pagan religion possesses three defining characteristics:
(that is to say, recognising a plurality of divine beings that may or may not be reducible to a monotheistic view, a dualistic view, or whatever)
Theophanistic
(seeing the material world and the natural laws by which it functions as a manifestation of divinity)
Gender-independent
(a refusal to accept an exclusively masculine divine order. More specifically, a recognition and acknowledgement of the female aspect of divinity)
None of the foregoing characteristcs fail our Yardsticks and therefore it can be concluded that contemporary Paganism is at least off to a good start in developing religious movements that will prove to be credible, authentic, and valid.
