The Sacred

Here's the rub: If I can actually describe it, it is not the Sacred. I can call things sacred, meaning that they are important to me or that they fill me with awe, but the word sacred implies something more. In fact, William James, writing in his famous The Varieties of Religious Experience used the phrase "The More" to designate whatever it was that some people called "God", others "Allah"; still other people, such as the Hindus, refer to various characteristics, but do not name The More. The Christian theologian, Paul Tillich, referred to the Sacred as "the ground of being."

Why is this so difficult? Because the Sacred can only be experienced, not described, every attempt to describe it is untrue. We can only speak of the Sacred in metaphor. And the metaphor only refers to our own experience of the Sacred. Others may, in fact will, have a different experience. Therefore, even if they use the same words as I do, they will mean something different. My metaphor can never be prescriptive.

Religious doctrines, dogma and creeds are always wrong, except for the people who wrote them. This is the origin of my belief that orthodoxy is always wrong. The Sacred is always more than we can encompass with our orthodoxies.

I prefer to use the word "heterodox", but in a new and positive light. Often heterodox is associated with heretical. But, as I see it, heterodox thinking deliberately rejects any orthodoxy in its entirety, seeing in orthodoxy the error of mistaking metaphor for reality. Orthodoxy sees the finger pointing to the moon and makes the mistake of creating doctrines and "truths" about the finger, worshiping the finger rather than seeing the moon. "Heresy", is simply the rejection of one or more orthodox positions, replacing it with its own alternative orthodoxy.

Of course, the same logic holds for almost all human endeavors. Those who "believe in" science, think themselves more rational than those who acknowledge their spirituality. Yet science is, by definition, not about absolutes, but about probabilities and approximations. The nature of science is asymptotic. That is, scientific "truth" is always approaching the truth but never quite reaching it.

Does that mean all is hopeless in communicating our experiences of the Sacred, our spiritual experiences? Yes and No! (Yeah. I hate that too.) Yes, if your goal is that others completely understand you and your experience, the most you can do is create the metaphors and give them to others (Even if some people actually convince themselves that their metaphors are the reality). One can, of course, make corrections to the other person's understanding of your metaphor and through dialog come closer to understanding. But it is still a metaphor and not the reality of your experience.

On the other hand, "No"; there can be value in religion. It can provide a common language, if it isn't taken too seriously, too literally, and too dogmatically. Having a common language means that we can come closer to understanding each other's experience of The More. A religion could, potentially, be a community of spirituality recognizing that each person must apprehend the Sacred for herself, but the members supporting each other's spiritual practice and growth. When this happens, we are facilitated in communicating our experience of The Sacred.