© 1994 Byron Belitsos
© 1994 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
| The Supreme Potential of the Family | Fall 1994 — Index | My God is a Sweet Juicy Apple — Without the Waxy Cover |
This is the final section of a two part report on the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions. First part
For anyone interested in the future of religion, the Parliament of the World’s Religions, held in Chicago last September, was a central event of our times, a jubilee for interreligious dialogue. It also marked the centennial of the world-historic 1893 Parliament of World Religion, now recognized as the founding event in the interfaith movement. The 1993 Parliament heralded a new beginning of the movement toward religious unity in a postmodern world.
Throughout the week, lay people, theologians, and religious leaders grappled with various approaches to interfaith dialogue. All of us, even the proselytizers, were swept up into a vast experiment of sharing and listening.
Speaker after speaker advocated that each of us listen openly and graciously to the beliefs of all others, no matter how different or strange. We were urged to allow the other to share, and allow the other to listen. This reigning philosophy goaded those of us who are used to disguising our religious affiliation — notably Urantia Book readers — to come out of the closet. After 19 years of reading the Book, this was the first religious gathering I have attended where I felt quite uninhibited about sharing my belief in The Urantia Book.
After 19 years of reading the Book, this was the first religious gathering I have attended where I felt quite uninhibited about sharing my belief in The Urantia Book.
The spirit of the Parliament was one of general openness, but I was able to identify at least four distinct models for interreligious dialogue that seemed to animate the participants: exclusivist, inclusivist, pluralist, and functionalist.
We all know that many religions have spawned fundamentalist movements that find intolerable the relativism implied in interfaith dialogue. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention sent no representatives to the PWR, nor did any of the strains of Islamic fundamentalism. My own mother church, the Eastern Orthodox, surprised many by withdrawing on the third day of the Parliament, on orders from the Patriarch in Istanbul, Turkey. The Orthodox were offended by the presence of several small “neo-pagan” groups, notably WICCA and the eco-feminist group called Covenant of the Goddess.
It was an embarrassment for me to realize that my two religious affiliations, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Urantia Fellowship, were not represented at the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions.
Others of the exclusivist strain were more pragmatic. There was no shortage of proselytizing organizations who used the Parliament as a platform to promulgate “truth.” I personally met many attendees who held forth on the superiority of their tradition over others, or who had considerable difficultly allowing me to share my own peculiar faith.
I suppose I am an inclusivist. The Urantia Book seems to endorse this position in the “Second Discourse On Religion” (UB 155:6.9), where we read that “the religion of the spirit requires only unity of experience…only unity of spirit feeling”.
The exclusivist approach might be described as “esoteric,” as opposed to the “exoteric” tendencies that exist within these same traditions. Generally, esoteric religionists identify as “absolute” some feature of the external form of their religion. A revealed text, a ritualistic practice, or some definition or symbol of God, is seen as superior in some sense to all others. To permit relativism would cause an unacceptable insecurity in the faith.
By contrast with the esoteric, the exoteric’s faith is based on a direct mystical or personal experience of the Ultimate. Symbols and beliefs are experienced as transparent-an expedient way to mediate the encounter with God. “The exoteric finds the Absolute within traditions as poets find poetry in poems,” says Frithjof Schuon, who has elaborated the distinction between esoteric and exoteric in The Transcendental Unity of Religions and elsewhere.
Exoteric believers in any tradition have an obvious basis for dialogue that is grounded in their common mystical experience. This would imply that there are only two types of religions: the esoteric and the esoteric, and these divergent approaches are to be found in each tradition. Schuon says the real divisions in world religion are not between the many religions, but these two very different types of religious persons.
I suppose I am an inclusivist. The Urantia Book seems to endorse this position in the “Second Discourse On Religion” (UB 155:6.9), where we read that “the religion of the spirit requires only unity of experience…only unity of spirit feeling.”
The ultimate meaning of the Parliament for me was in the growing sense of the unity of religious experience as the ground for interreligious dialogue. A unity of religious feeling was always palpable at the interfaith meditation sessions held each morning and evening. This sense of unity was especially true of plenary sessions — grand events with several thousand people often in attendance, some watching by closed-circuit TV in adjoining ballrooms.
The ultimate meaning of the Parliament for me was in the growing sense of the unity of religious experience as the ground for interreligious dialogue. A unity of religious feeling was always palpable at the interfaith meditation sessions held each morning and evening.
The culminating experience of spirit unity for me was the plenary on “The Inner Life,” held on the fourth night. Representatives of the major religions spoke — each one a master of the exoteric path within their tradition. As each intoned his or her experience of transcendent realities, the audience seemed to become more still. An unspoken consensus of the unity of spiritual experience hung in the air. I felt this especially in the poignant silences between their presentations, in the dignified demeanor of each representative, and in the ardor of the listening audience.
The meetings of the academics and theologians were concurrent with the popular workshops and lectures. They were open to any lay observers who could fit into the crowded ballrooms.
The academics wrestled with more exacting models for creating a legitimate basis for interfaith dialogue. A dominant model among today’s theologians is “pluralism.” Raimundo Panikkar, a keynote speaker in the Conference on Pluralism, warned that we must be skeptical in our search for a “universal theory” or even a common essence of religion. He and others made clear the danger of a rush to find a “common essence,” for in the process we might miss what is genuinely different, and therefore what is genuinely challenging in other religions. Stating in advance what is common may inhibit our ability to really listen, to be simply open. While rejecting the need to always find common ground, the theologians of pluralism paradoxically hold fast to the value of dialogue, while always warning against the pitfalls of a “radical skepticism.” They try to walk the difficult path between “inclusivism” and total relativism.
I define the functionalist model of interfaith dialogue as the search for broadly common goals and purposes, especially that of uniting all humankind — even non-believers — for the sake of the survival of the planet. Functionalists are pragmatic. They realize how difficult it would be to unite “…the followers of the differing intellectual theologies which so characterize Urantia.” (UB 92:5.16)
Functionalists can find considerable support for their approach in The Urantia Book, which preaches that “Someday religionists will get together and actually effect cooperation on the basis of unity of ideals and purposes rather than attempting to do so on the basis of psychological opinions and theological beliefs.” (UB 99:5.7)
This Urantia Book statement is a fair description of the Parliament! The Assembly of Religious and Spiritual Leaders did succeed in unifying around the Declaration of a Global Ethic, which was issued on the final day of the Parliament. Meeting for three days in the auditorium of the Art Institute of Chicago, the site of the 1893 Parliament, the delegates debated this and many other proposals, and with a few abstentions approved the document.
The Declaration bases unity on shared ethical principles, not theology. It affirms a broad and common understanding for ethical behavior for all peoples, for norms and standards describing what is acceptable and unacceptable across all religious and spiritual traditions. This includes commitments to non-violence, just economics, tolerance, equal rights, and respect for life. It also condemns inequities in the world economy, environmental abuses, media manipulation, sex discrimination, and religious violence. The Assembly also affirmed a process by which the Declaration could take root in the world community, through an ongoing process of debate and discussion in the religious community, aided by scholarly input and critique.
The Declaration was drafted by the noted Swiss theologian Hans Kung, by invitation for the Council of the Parliament. An extended argument for such a world ethic appears in his most recent book, Global Responsibility: In Search of a New Ethic, reviewed in a recent issue of The Spiritual Fellowship Journal.
The 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions was a new beginning for world religious unity. Hopefully, the day will come when humankind will achieve that spiritual maturity where religious tolerance and interfaith understanding will enable us to achieve religious unity amid our theological diversity.
Byron has been a journalist and television producer and is presently a consultant in the telecommunications industry.
| The Supreme Potential of the Family | Fall 1994 — Index | My God is a Sweet Juicy Apple — Without the Waxy Cover |