Cain and Abel and the Stages of Spirituality

So, I’m a student of the Psychology of Religion.

Scholars have done studies on the developmental stages of faith—meaning there ARE stages of faith from less mature to more mature. Early stages rely on an external authority. They are very rules-based and about doing things “right” according to the authority and the rules. There is usually an innocence or naïveté because folks don’t know better, they can’t be more progressive yet, and they absolutely want to be “saved".

The hardest shift is between level 3 and level 4 spirituality (according to James Fowler) when a person shifts from an external authority to an internal authority, and from a head-based religion to a heart-based religion. (Richard Rohr simplifies it as early life—stages 1, 2, 3—and later life—stages 4 and up.) The people around them who are still in a rules- and authority-based religion are particularly threatened by their shift and do not understand it. I liken it to learning to swim. People who have not learned to swim cling to the side of the pool and call out in fear at their loved ones who are starting to let go and swim in the water.

(Does this information help in understanding the ways people do religion that can be so different?)

If you are raised by people who are in stage 4 or higher level of spiritual development, you still have to go through your own stages, but everything about the way they live encourages you to move into a thoughtful, heart-based approach to life. But if you are raised by people who are “clinging to the side of the pool” in an authoritative “you will only be safe if you stick with us” religion, it is much much harder to take the next developmental step into heart-wisdom, because most of the people around you are screaming that you are going to “die”. They don't want you to notice all the people that you’re finding who are living from their hearts and yet are not "dead".

This theory has helped me a lot in understanding why people do religion the way they do. Levels five and higher in spiritual development don’t even look like “religion”, because they are so respectful of the individual spiritual journey. They tend to be empowering, not controlling.

How is this connected to Cain and Abel? (Genesis 4)

My childhood tradition's teachings say that Cain represents “the need to be right” and Abel represents “being loving from deep wisdom.” They are brothers because they are ways of doing religion. Cain is born first (early spirituality) and Abel second (later life spirituality). Cain resents and does not understand why God favors Abel (the more mature and genuine spirituality). Cain is threatened by Abel and wants God's favor too, not understanding the shifts he still has to make in his motivations and perspective. And threatened, Cain “kills” Abel thinking that that is the way to win God's attention and favor (someone clearly isn't reading the manual). Cain-energy in life will always kill Abel-energy. Judgy, controlling, need-to-be-perfect-and-right ways of doing religion (or politics) will always attack and criticize and invalidate loving, inclusive, service-focused ways of doing religion (and politics). It’s just the way people are. There's a foundational shift that needs to happen from "I've got mine, screw you" to "We are all in this together; if you are suffering, we are all suffering".

We all have a tendency to be drawn into the need to be right and "win" arguments. We value a sense of cognitive security and don't like perspectives that threaten our foundational narrative of how life (God, "salvation") works. Arguing with someone about how they are wrong is rarely effective because they are so emotionally invested in "staying alive" (maintaining the reality they have known and trusted until this point).

If you don't know how to swim, moving into deep water means death.

Questioning religious dogma is moving into deep water. It is essential that we learn to swim so as to be much freer and to realize how life-giving swimming can be. But everything in Cain-level development screams "death!" unless you are surrounded by loving swimmers encouraging you to try swimming.

The same way you can't teach a child to read until they have reached reading readiness, you can't force a lower level spiritual seeker to be ready to think for themselves until they are ready AND feel safe enough to try. Some birds are pushed from the nest, some fly with sufficient encouragement, but some have parents telling them that flying equals death.

So just love everybody to bits.

Try not to judge because people are (possibly stuck) where they are for good reason.

Learn to draw firm boundaries with those who want to push their beliefs on you (spiritual violation) even as you stop trying to push your beliefs onto others (still a spiritual violation, no matter how "right" you are).

This is my distillation of theology and psychology. It is not to be used as a club to force others to agree. Just a balm and guide for those who need a helpful perspective.

For more scholarship on the stages of faith you might start here:

https://www.institute4learning.com/2020/06/12/the-stages-of-faith-according-to-james-w-fowler/

For counseling and empowerment on your spiritual journey, you may contact me here:

https://pastoralison.com/

I do talk therapy as well as weddings.

Liberals and Conservatives in the United States

"Liberal," "Conservative," and all the other permutations of political identity in the US....

I want to understand the deep-down reasons we humans believe what we believe when it comes to politics.

In particular I want to understand why, in today's politics, we are so sure that OUR side is in the right and the other side is immoral, dishonest, and going to destroy most of what we value about our country.

I want to understand the deep WHY of our divisions, because I believe that if we can come together on the WHY, we can find agreement on the HOW.

One thing that seems abundantly clear is that deep-down our beliefs are EMOTION driven. We like to think they are rational and logical, but if they were so, why do we get so EMOTIONAL when someone else's perspective challenges our own?  Our drives, our identity, our sense of safety in the world are all tied up in our political allegiance.  The things we call "reason," "truth," "facts," and even "alternative facts" are the clothes we use to cover our sense of safety, identity and belonging.  We then claim that we are reasonable and the other side is irrational.

But identity, safety, and tribal allegiance are LIZARD-BRAIN attachments, surrounded by protective defense mechanisms aimed to keep us alive.
Therefore, we can get violently angry when someone else's words and intended direction for our country seem to be threatening all that we deeply value.   It feels PERSONAL. It feels LIFE and DEATH.

I would invite everyone to read Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" for a book-length exploration of the underlying differences between today's conservatives and liberals. If you are looking for a shorter read, I found this article very helpful: https://georgelakoff.com/2017/07/01/two-questions-about-trump-and-republicans-that-stump-progressives/.

I don't know about you, but I am tired of being endlessly outraged. I am no longer satisfied simply swapping tales of the other side's insanity with other tribe members.

I want to --- I NEED to believe there is a way to have a respectful conversation with the "other" and to get back on a joint path of mutual respect.  There are some humans I love who are Republicans. Have I sat down with them to discuss why we are so completely polarized, or better yet, how to find our way back to cooperation?

No.  Not really. Not successfully.

Do I believe a moderation of views and reduction of vilifications is possible for our mutual benefit?

Yes and yes and yes and yes.

It is too easy to assume that those who support the other side are all idiots and nincompoops, immoral and self-serving.  But believing that doesn't enable me to reach out to them for solutions.  It doesn't help me build bridges or enable me to build respect or come to workable agreements.

I want to believe that if we can dig down to our emotional motivations and be honest about them, we will find that we all want the same thing: safety, security for our loved ones, freedom, and the ability to support ourselves.

Don't we all want the same things?  Don't we?

Isn't it mainly a sense of threat that makes us build walls against each other? Isn't it a loss of connection or any sense of joint humanity that produces increasing levels of blame and vilification?  Do we really believe that those on the other side are ALL so divested of their humanity that any reason or useful connection is utterly impossible?

In "emotionally focused therapy," it is the digging back down to the common or shared feelings of the couple that helps them blast away the layers and layers of wounds and walls.  Emotionally focused therapy has a high success rate. This method teaches ways to listen for the deeper, more vulnerable and innocent feelings that are hiding behind the blaming and name-calling.  Inevitably, these feelings are the same on both sides --- "I need to know you won't leave me."  "I need to know you love me." "I need to know we are on the same side."  When the couple gets back to those feelings, and sees the genuine longing in their partner's eyes, they can be willing to trust again. They are then ready to learn how to hear and see each other differently and begin again.

Particularly those among us with attachment disorders (is there any among us without some fear of abandonment or unlovability?), will have innate defense mechanisms designed to cover our bases should we be abandoned or rejected. We will withdraw preemptively. We will see rejection where there is none.  Now picture two such people in a relationship and imagine how easily trust and commitment can become withdrawal and blame and a sense of being wronged.  Blame is flying in all directions and each believes the other started it.

There is a way to feel safe enough to let down our defenses and start over with a properly trained therapist.  I have seen it.  I have lived it.  When the hearts are open and trusting again, the extremes go away. The polarization stops. The effort returns to unity and cooperation.

And so my question must be: can we as a country do this work?  If so, who will create and hold our safe space while we try?

I need to believe reconciliation is possible.  The model works in marriages. The model works in restorative justice circles. I cannot give up hope that there is a way to come back together as a country in just the same way. But I must be willing to encounter the vulnerable humanity of the other (in a mutual and safe way) for us to find that way forward.

Can we create that possibility?



Does it blow my mind to imagine any possible reconciliation with a regime that seems to have utterly lost its mind?  Yes.

And yet, without believing that it is possible, it will never be sought.

Can you show me another way for this country to come back to something reasonably united?

I don't know that the US was ever greater than any other country.  I doubt it is healthy for any country to see itself as "the greatest" any way. But I can believe that the US could become one pretty great country among many again.  (There are a LOT of pretty great countries in the world other than the US. If that threatens your sense of identity, maybe take a look at why you need to see it that way.  Often it is the bullies that insist they are "the best," and that is to cover a sense of inferiority.)

I am embarrassed for our country right now. My feelings are a lot like those of a teenager out in public with loud, angry parents.  I want them to stop fighting. I no longer want to be associated with such a family.  I have lost respect for both mother and father. I just want to leave.

Except that this is the country of my birth. I can't chop off years of belonging and pride. I cannot jettison my affection no matter how much I try.  That is why this gong-show of a Presidency hurts so much.  (With apologies for those who do not see it as a gong-show. You are right. That name-calling is part of the problem.)

The US has the potential to be a force for good in the world.  The US can return to being a country worthy of respect if we simply never give up learning and trying---and admitting when we have screwed up.  We might have to get over ourselves a bit. There may be a big slice of humble pie waiting to be swallowed.  All I know is, I am willing to believe it is possible and NEVER GIVE UP.  How about y'all? Can we do this?

(I do hope God blesses America. America is not being much of a blessing in the world, that's for sure. Can we get that fixed?)

The value of THE TRUTH, or "Was Jesus Married?"

The following is adapted from a recent assignment in seminary. The professor used an actual event from his own life to ask us to examine and put into words our own faith in response to such a situation.

Spiritual Reflection #2

By Alison Longstaff

For TH680 A

October 26th , 2012

The Scenario

     Maria and Susan have been colleagues for 10 years. They know each other very well and often enjoy their conversations while working at the Air Canada Check‐In counter at Pearson International Airport. Maria is from the Philippines and Susan from a small town in southwestern Ontario. They like to talk about current affairs. It is two o’clock in the afternoon when I arrive at their counter to check in for my flight.
       “So where are you headed?” asked Maria.
       “To a conference,” I responded.
       “Oh, that must be interesting. What do you do?” Maria continued.
       “I teach at a theological school,” I said. “It is a theological conference.”

With absolutely no one behind me and no one at Susan’s counter, Maria went on, “Really, that is interesting. We were just talking about Karen King; you know the one that found this old document that said Jesus was married.”
      “Oh yes,” I said, “I read about that in the newspaper.”
       Maria said, “She went running off to the press with all that stuff before she checked it out. Remember the St. James’ Ossuary (Burial Box)? It was a fake in the end. The Vatican sayes this document is a forgery too. I am a lifelong Catholic. I know what I believe, but Susan says ‘What does it matter?’ So you’re a theologian. What do you think?”

Here is my response for the professor, grade TBD.

     The question of whether Jesus was married or not typically threatens a long-held and well-established point of faith for many. It is possible that for one or both of these women the deeper question might be, “If ‘the church’ (the Vatican, the Pope, authorities through the ages, their own trusted ministers, etc) has been wrong about this all these years, what else have they been wrong about?” Looked at this way, my response could threaten the spiritual foundations of anyone still reliant on an official outside authority to define what they should believe (as opposed to their own personal, internalized synthesis of faith). That is, of course, if they didn't dismiss me out of hand, as I am neither a Catholic, nor even a man. The very fact that this original scenario was encountered by a mature, Anglo-Saxon male with a beard already changes the significance of how my response will be weighted by the questioners.

      Nevertheless, this situation calls me to examine how I view my role in relation to such casual yet deeply significant questions. I will likely never see these women again, and it is not my desire in any way to undermine their need to believe what they already believe. My heart desire is to support people in formulating their own faith in intelligent, conscious, and well-informed ways, and not simply to impose my understanding on them. While on the one hand I want to give them a response that invites them to continue to deepen their faith intelligently, on the other hand I do not want to so challenge their faith that they are thrown into crisis.

      Therefore, as I look into the eyes of these women, I must ask myself this: What is the most pastoral response that I can give, knowing that I am seen as a “religious authority figure,” and specifically not wanting my answer to stir up contention between them or precipitate a crisis of faith in the questioners?

Foundations

      My natural teaching style is to lead any student to their own understanding by reflecting a question back to them in a respectful and inviting way. A person’s own attempt to articulate what he or she believes helps them understand and integrate their own beliefs more deeply. I wish to show respect for both Susan and Maria’s faith traditions --- to do no violence to either one’s sacred beliefs while being yet true to my own tradition and formulation.

      Further, I am Swedenborgian and a psych undergrad. For me, spiritual and psychological development is entwined and inseparable. James Fowler’s stages of faith development shapes my pastoral response to these women. Fowler’s findings echo statements in Swedenborg’s own material, written over two-hundred years earlier.[1] If I could know for certain where each woman was in her spiritual journey, I could shape my response accordingly. But I cannot.

         In terms of my own doctrinal integrity in addressing the significance of whether Jesus was married or not, my tradition has two points that speak to this. First is the teaching that Sacred Scripture holds a continuous deep inner meaning. [2] This belief frees me from worrying about any literal accuracy, as the integrity and value lies in the inner meaning, not the letter. What may or may not be historically accurate is a curiousity to me, but in no way threatens the foundations of my faith. Secondly, Swedenborg promotes throughout his theology that marriage is a metaphor for the spiritually evolved or “regenerated” human. Marriage represents the inner union within a person’s psyche of intellect and heart, or true integrity---the intellect is suffused with a deep sense of love and connectedness with the rest of humanity, while the heart is steered toward useful service by the intellect. Jesus being “married” makes absolute sense to me through the lens of this metaphor. On the other hand, it has been in God’s providence so far that we have primarily believed that Jesus was unmarried. I trust God’s leadership and timing, and the detail of Jesus’ marital status is not significant to me.

             Finally, I also believe strongly that what we believe is not as important as how we live. This is also supported in Swedenborg.[3] Looking this way at the effect of my beliefs on my living was brought home to me during a lively debate with friends a few years ago. The question was whether or not hell was eternal. After debating back and forth within this group one dear friend said at last, “All I know is that believing that God gives us as long as we need to get straightened out, instead of us having to get it right in our short time on earth makes me a kinder, gentler human being.”

That one statement revolutionized the way I go about examining my beliefs. When my core value is the Golden Rule, the question, “In what way does this belief affect how I treat my neighbour?” is of more value to me than whether it is the “perfect truth.” Swedenborg would say that any truth that is not softened and informed by love ceases to be true anyway, no matter how accurate it is.[4]

I will leave it there. My response would be pastoral according to what and how these women responded to me. I would invite these women to tell me more about their beliefs, and I would respond further according to the tensions and unmet needs I might sense within their answers. For my part, it isn't about what is “THE TRUTH.” It is about what these two souls need from me to be more peaceful, more fulfilled, and more wisely loving. That is my job in this encounter, and that is all.

---

[1] Swedenborg describes at least four stages of faith or “regeneration” loosely paralleling Fowler’s six stages, in Arcana Coelestia (henceforth cited as AC) §3603:3

[2] This is most succinctly described in Swedenborg’s De Verbo, §1 and following.

[3] Swedenborg promotes “charity” or loving-kindness first.  Kindness without wisdom still comes from the heart, whereas faith not lived in acts of service is seen as dead. AC §7884 and AC §1100

[4] Beliefs not informed by love actually slay loving-kindness as Cain slew Abel. AC §369

 References

Fowler, James W. (1981). Stages of faith : the psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Swedenborg, E. (1983). Arcana Coelestia (J. Elliot Trans.). London, England: Swedenborg Society. (1748).

Swedenborg, E. (1934). De Verbo (J. Chadwick Trans.). London, England: Swedenborg Society. (1762).

A Note About Page Numbers in citations from Swedenborg Text citations from Swedenborg=s material do not refer to page numbers but to passage or paragraph numbers.  This numbering system is used consistently throughout all his editions. Citations may include Name of Publication as Translated, date the translation came to print, name of the translator from the Latin, and the passage number preceded by the symbol §.