The Dalai Lama has recently published a new book in which he argues for a religion-free ethical life. That's a conversation many have been having lately, but it's a little unusual coming from one of the most recognizable spiritual leaders of our time. It's called, Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World, I haven't read but snippets and reviews yet, but it looks worthy of a read, if simply because of the content and the author. He essentially is arguing that in this age of globalized, digitized living with culture clash a part of virtually everyones life it might be time to look for a way forward, an ethical way forward that is, in his words, an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally accessible to those with faith and those without; a secular ethics. here are echoes of so many people and ideas here--my first thoughts ran to Dietrich Bonhoeffer who wrote a short piece on religionless Christianity whilst in prison awaiting execution for his part in an attempt on Hitler's life.
In one review I read by Louis Sahagun for the Los Angeles Times, he wrote that "a metaphor the Dalai Lama likes to use goes like this: The difference between ethics and religion is like the difference between water and tea. Ethics without religious content is water, a critical requirement for health and survival. Ethics grounded in religion is tea, a nutritious and aromatic blend of water, tea leaves, spices, sugar and, in Tibet, a pinch of salt. "But however the tea is prepared, the primary ingredient is always water," he says. "While we can live without tea, we can't live without water. Likewise, we are born free of religion, but we are not born free of the need for compassion...(a concern for the welfare of others) when combined with reflection on our personal experiences and coupled with simple common sense, can, I believe, offer a strong case for the benefits of cultivating basic human values that does not rely on religious principles or faith at all. And I welcome this."
This is an idea that I fond myself moving to increasingly. In fact, my closest theological partners (Pete Rollins, Kester Brewin, Christian McCabe) all echo similar thoughts and pathways in their thinking, writing, practices. I have been feeling for sometime, that while the disappearance of traditional religion is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future, it's role in society and culture is shifting yet again. The past five hundred years, since the Protestant Reformation have seen religious impulses track with the emergence of modernity and take on a flavour particular to those times.
Since the 1960s and particularly as postmodern philiosophy gained influence, new trends and dynamics began to appear, along with cracks in religion's armour, or if not armour, then it's efficacy within society. Now we have moved into a post-postmodern age, defined with new digital textuality and the other changes that preceded, aligned and shaped our new world, it makes sense that religion underway a new shift--that shift doesn't bode well for those hoping for a healthy renaissance of 'what was' we aren't going back, I'll put money on that (Gingrichs' $10 or Romney's $10k!). This is why for me there are no theological grids (on any part of the theological spectrum) which have emerged before and up to the late 1990s that can adequately meet the current condition--they were all formed in a different world--nor do traditional approaches to the challenges of globality such as ecumenism or comparative religious studies, don't have much a chance either--time to look forward not back in my mind--get our heads out of the teacup and start swimming in the water, maybe we'll get somewhere--I like what the DL is saying.
Comments