Skip to main content

Order, Disorder, Reorder

I've been thinking about a comment I heard recently from Richard Rohr - that we have to go from order to disorder to reorder. This is the spiritual journey. But a lot of us get stuck along the way.

Order is the first instinct that everything should be neat, tidy, clear, in proper categories. It is the dualistic thinking that things are right or wrong, true or false; that people are saved or unsaved, included or excluded.

A lot of conservative religion gets stuck in the order stage. It rejects any level of nuance, complexity, ambiguity as a sign of "back sliding". And people who think that are right in a sense - if you start to question things, start thinking "does this really make sense?" you may well end up leaving conservative religion as it will become too constrictive for you. You begin to pick the order apart. You start to do this because you want order, but your questions don't lead to clear answers, but just to more questions. It may start with a question about a thing that doesn't make sense in scripture, or a question about how religion relates to science, or a question about sexual ethics, but once you start looking into this stuff you're confronted with layers and layers or complexity and it starts to fall apart.

Disorder is when it falls apart. You reject order because you know it is simplistic or just plain wrong. You know there are not simple answers. You begin to value the questioning, the curiosity, the freedom to explore. You begin to build a sense of identity on that freedom. You don't know what you believe, but you know what you reject.

A lot of liberal religion gets stuck at the level of disorder. It develops a weird relationship with conservative religion - in that it knows it is opposed to conservative religion - but it gets its sense of identity from that opposition. It rejects conservative religion - and yet it spends more of its time talking about conservative religion that anything else. Take away conservative religion and it has nothing to talk about. This kind of stuckness does not represent any kind of freedom from conservative religion, but rather a significant dependence on it. People get stuck in a repeated pattern of the same argument, rehearsed over and over again. It's like ending a relationship with someone but doing nothing but talking about them, and all their faults. It's understandable for a while, but you shouldn't get stuck in this stage. Eventually a friend's gotta take your hand, and say: honey, MOVE ON!

Reorder is when you move on. You know there are no simple answers, you know life is messy, but you know you have to find a way to get on with it. You know where you stand, where you don't stand, and there is a sense of comfort and ease in that.

What I would call "mature religion" (for want of a better phrase) is about reordering. It is no longer conservative religion, but neither is it obsessed with opposing conservative religion. It can even, from a place of distance and maturity, see things that are valuable about conservative religion. It knows that there is mystery and nuance in the world, and it doesn't try to impose order upon it, but it does know you have to find a place to stand, find a path to walk, and it does so with joy. It is at peace with itself, with where it lives, while remaining curious about other paths. It has gone from order to disorder to reorder and it lives with the maturity and wisdom of the journey.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with