This is my third blog post regarding worldviews. On July 30, I wrote (here) about the importance of expanding one’s worldview. The theme of my August 20 post was the sadness of shrinking one’s worldview. In this article, please consider the all-inclusive worldview (my term) presented by Jon Paul Sydnor in his 2024 book, The Great Open Dance: A Progressive Christian Theology.*1
You may think it strange, but I never learned to dance. Growing up in a traditional Southern Baptist church, social dancing was frowned upon—and I didn’t have any trouble with that. In the last 20 years, though, I have read three theology books with “Dance” in the title.
The
first of those was Molly Marshall’s 2003 book, Joining the Dance: A Theology
of the Spirit. Seven years ago, I read Richard Rohr’s The Divine Dance: The Trinity and Your
Transformation (2016). Then this month I finished reading Sydnor’s engaging
new book.
These
three books are largely, but not wholly, about the Christian concept of the
Trinity, and all three authors write about the Greek word perichōrēsis, which
I became aware of when reading Marshall’s book.
In 2022 (here), Rohr
wrote, “Trinitarian theology
says that God is a ‘circular’ rotation (perichoresis) of total outpouring and perfect receiving
among three intimate partners.” That “circular rotation” is depicted as “the
divine dance” in Rohr’s book noted above.*2
(I am quite sure that such “circular rotation” is quite
different from the sexually stimulating social dancing that I have eschewed since
my teenage years.)
The “great open dance” views all reality as being fully interrelated.
Dance partners are obviously
not one; they are separate selves. But they also are not two. Sydnor says the
same is true for everything.
In interfaith
discussions in Japan, my Japanese Buddhist friends sometimes talked about the
term/concept funi (不二), which
literally means not two. In his first chapter, Sydnor points out that “'not-two' refers to the unity-in-difference upon which our universe is based.” This is a nondual
worldview.*3
Sydnor continues: “Nondualism asserts that all reality is inherently related.” Thus, “nondualism offers intellectual resistance to the false divisions that cause our suffering, implicitly condemning sexism, racism, classism, nationalism, … and every other divisive worldview.”
“The Persons of
the Trinity Relate to One Another in a Divine Dance” is the title of one
subjection in Sydnor’s first chapter. There he says, “When a skilled couple
dances you cannot detect who is leading…. Their movements appear spontaneously
generated.”
And so it is with
the Trinity: “They [the ‘Persons’ of the Trinity] dance freely, spontaneously,
always in relation to one another but never determined by one another,
co-originating one another in joyful mutuality.”
This, then, leads
to the central theme of the book: “We, being made in the image of God, are made
to dance—with God, with one another, and with the cosmos.” This theme forms the
basis for a worldview that is deeper and wider than most of us have—or have even
thought of.
On this basis,
Sydnor elucidates an all-inclusive worldview,
one based on the perfect, unconditional, and universal love expressed by the
Greek word agapé. Thus he asserts, “God is three persons united through
agapic love into one nondual community. God is agapic nonduality.”
Sydnor acknowledges that “people want faith to
give them more life, and people want faith to make society more just,
and people want faith to grant the world more peace.” He then states
that he has “written this book in the conviction that Trinitarian, agapic nondualism
can do so.”
In his third chapter, Sydnor cites this
foundational Bible verse: “There is one God and Creator of all, who is over
all, who works through all and is within all” (Ephesians. 4:6, The Inclusive
Bible, 2022). All here means, well, all, and that is the basis
for Sydnor’s all-inclusive worldview.
Such a perspective is completely based on agape,
“the unconditional, universal love of God for all creation.” These words of Sydnor
in the first chapter lead to this statement in the ninth chapter: “What would
society look like if its members truly trusted God and enacted the divine love?
Certainly, it would be universalist.”
So, shall we dance, joining the great open
dance of God and adopting a universal, all-inclusive worldview based on agapic nonduality?
Sounds good to me.
_____
*1 I received a free copy of the e-book edition of Sydnor’s book
from Mike Morrell and his Speakeasy website which provides “quality
books in exchange for candid reviews.” This post is in partial fulfillment of that
promise, but I am also publishing a review of the book on another blogsite (see here).
*2 As
indicated on the cover of Rohr’s book, it was written “with Mike Morrell.”
*3
Funi is the Japanese translation of the Sanskrit words advaita in
Hinduism and advaya in Buddhism. Sydnor is also the co-editor of (the
very expensive) book, Nondualism: An Interreligious Exploration (2023)
and the founding director of The Nondualism Project (click
here to access their attractive website).
The first comments received this morning are from local Thinking Friend David Nelson:
ReplyDelete"What a delightful reflection on non duality and dance. I would only add the importance of dance in many world religions and sacred spirituality. Native Americans dance to engage the spirits, to prepare for crops, and engage in conflict."
DeleteDavid, I thought of you often as I read this book. It talked about the joy of diversity as well as the interconnectedness of all people, ideas that I have often heard from you. But I don't know how to respond to the dances of Native Americans, and Sydnor doesn't say anything about their dances. He sees dancing as expression of joy and mutuality. But I don't know what he would say about Native rain dances or war dances.
On a Native American website, I found this explanation: "In the tapestry of Native American culture, the rain dance holds profound significance, deeply entwined with spirituality, tradition, and the survival of communities. This vibrant ritual, performed by numerous tribes across the Americas, symbolizes a sacred connection between humans and the natural world, particularly the life-giving power of water." And the next paragraph begins, "The rain dance emerges from a deep understanding of the interconnectedness of all living things."
This is closely related to Sydnor's central idea, and perhaps to my emphasis on an all-inclusive world view.
I have trouble relating to the Native war dances, though. It seems to me that they express the problem of duality rather than the benefit of understanding the world in a nondual manner.
Then I received these longer comments from former local Thinking Friend Eric Dollard who has now lived in Chicago for many years:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for introducing us to Sydnor's new book.
"I am not sure what to think about 'perichoresis,' the Trinity, or the metaphor of dancing, but I agree that we need to move beyond dualistic thinking. As a weak physicist, I nonetheless see nondualism in nature; gravity, time, space, matter and energy are engaged in a grand dance of the cosmos. In biology, we are linked to all life by DNA, something found in all living things, although some dualisms exist such as male and female.
"But Sydnor seems to be more concerned with the myth of dualism when it comes to human life and dignity, for which there is no moral or logical justification. When I encounter Christians who try to justify hierarchies (i.e., patriarchies) in the church or the family, I cite my favorite go-to verse for this: Galatians 3:28. (In a few other places, Paul says some things that appear to contradict Gal. 3:28, but I digress.)
"Since I am typically not saying anything new, I am not expecting a response, so you will have more time to respond to the more thought-provoking comments you receive. I can see those comments at your blog website. And I thank you again, Leroy, for keeping us on our intellectual toes."
Eric, I appreciate your comments, and even ideas that are not new are worth thinking about--and even old ideas can be seen in new ways that give us additional insight into the nature of reality.
DeleteIn his first chapter, Sydnor writes about how "physicists began to think relatively: everything is defined by its relation to other things. A thing is not a thing in itself; a thing is what it is through its interactions. Rethinking the physical universe as a relational universe, Einstein developed his general theory of relativity, a theory that has been repeatedly confirmed by predicted observations."
I'm not sure what you mean by "the myth of dualism," for the widespread dualism as seen in racism and/or sexism is quite common, although unfounded. In the eighth chapter, and even though he teaches at a Catholic college, Syndor has a subsection titled "Churches Should Ordain All Genders to Leadership Positions in the Church," and there he also cites Galatians 3:28.
A few minutes ago I received these good words from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"I strongly favor this new [worldview], Leroy. It has deep roots in the mystical tradition."
Yes, Sydnor mentions mysticism several times. For example, in the fourth chapter he writes, "Religious mystics have always insisted on the unity of humankind and the cosmos within God. As a result of this unity, we can never be satisfied with either a Godless world or a worldless God; we need our souls to be filled with both."
DeleteInteresting blog post, Leroy. Of course, there are several biblical references to dancing. They are usually associated with reversals for the better (e.g., mourning into dancing), joy, celebrations and even the Exodus liberation.
ReplyDeleteOne of the questions I have of you and/or the author of this book is: What distinction do you make between a monotheistic God and the concept of pantheism?
Thanks, Garth, for your comments and question. Regarding your first paragraph, there are certainly a fair number of references to dancing in the Old Testament, but hardly any in the New Testament. And unlike "social dancing" that has been so prevalent in the modern world, most of the biblical references seem to be dancing alone--usually for joy, although sometimes it was a women dancing alone for the sexual enjoyment of male viewers--rather than with a partner. Thus, the Biblical references to dancing are mostly quite different from the type of dance that Sydnor refers to--and different from the "circular rotation" ('perichoresis') of the divine Trinity.
DeleteIn response to your question: The not-two position of nonduality that Sydnor emphasizes, correctly in my opinion, recognizes both the transcendence of the One/Triune God and the immanence of God in the world. But if God and the physical world are not-two, neither are they one. So he rejects the idea of pantheism (all is one) and accepts concept of panentheism. In his third chapter he writes, "All is in God, even as God exceeds that all. Thus, panentheism is the belief that God emanates the universe from God’s very own being, such that the universe participates in divinity. Panentheism recognizes nature as sacred, while also preserving the personal God of theism."
I have long affirmed the concept of panentheism, which I think I first encountered when studying the theology of Paul Tillich.
It’s never too late to start dancing! 😊
ReplyDelete-KKS
🫤
DeleteHere are comments received yesterday from a highly respected local Thinking Friend:
ReplyDelete"I agree that God has created people in His image that He loves and wishes to partner with in this dance of life. But a dance requires the consent of both sides. From Creation forward, people have been given free will and may choose God or not. This is the storyline of the Bible. How could God force people to join His dance? Universalism also doesn't fit with Jesus' own teachings and actions (i.e., dying on the cross to save people from their sins). If we throw out Jesus' teachings, free will, and the storyline of the Bible, we wouldn't be left with much. Just because something sounds good doesn't make it true.
"Actually, it sounds more like 2 Timothy 4:3: 'For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.'"
[This is the response to the above comments that has corrections made in what I posted earlier today .]
DeleteThere is so much to be said in response to these comments, I can here (and now) only begin what needs to be a much longer response.
To begin with, neither I (nor, I assume, Dr. Sydnor) would disagree in the least with the opening statement (above) that “God has created people in His image that He loves and wishes to partner with in this dance of life.” The most foundational point of Sydnor is stated in his opening words of the Introduction: “Love is the ground, meaning, and destiny of the cosmos. We need love to flourish, and we will find flourishing only in love.” He and I fully agree in the reality of free will and understand “agape” love never seeks to compel or control but constantly seeks to woo others into “the divine dance.” That, truly I believe, is the storyline of the Bible.
In his seventh chapter, Sydnor writes about Jesus’ crucifixion—and resurrection. Concerning the former, he rejects the doctrine of “violent atonement,” which has long been a widespread Christian doctrine and is usually termed the “penal substitutionary doctrine” of the Atonement. Back in July 2017, I posted a blog article basically rejecting that understanding of the meaning/significance of Jesus’ death on the cross. I hope you and other readers will highlight and click on the following link (or if that doesn’t work, search in the list on the right for July 10, 2017):
The View from This Seat: What about Penal Substitutionary Atonement? (PSA)
In his book, Sydnor writes, “To say ‘Jesus died for your sins’ negates Jesus’s message and ministry. It does not heal. ... Jesus preaches a new social order, a universalism and egalitarianism that heartened the humble and threatened the proud. That preaching got him crucified.”
I wholeheartedly affirm “Jesus' teachings, free will, and the storyline of the Bible” (as I understand it from a lifetime of theological study and reflection). As for Jesus’ teachings, he didn’t say much (if anything) about PSA. I find his teachings most clearly summarized in the Sermon on the Mount, I have tried to live my life by following Jesus’ teachings there in Matthew 5~7--and I didn’t find anything in Sydnor’s book that seems to discount or belittle those teachings. (I have to sorrowfully admit, though, that I have too often fallen short in seeking to live by Jesus’ teachings.)
Every day I am reading a page in James Allen's “Book of Meditations and Thoughts for the Day” (1913). The book is old and I know next to nothing about the author, and while there are sometimes things in it I don’t agree with, today’s meditation includes these words: “Let your heart grow and expand with ever broadening love, until ,,, it embraces the whole universe with thoughtful tenderness. As the flower opens its petals to receive the morning light, so open your soul more and more to the glorious light of Truth.”
Part of what it means to expand one’s worldview is to be open to seeing/understanding more and more of that “glorious light of Truth.”
Thanks Dr. Seat, for laying out yet another challenging worldview. You are correct to emphasize the insights of mysticism in Christian belief. One question, however, relates to Christian practice, that is, ethics or ethical living and conduct. The late liberal rabbi Dr. Leo Baeck, in his book The Essence of Judaism (1905), emphasized that "religion is not experienced but lived." Religion is life. Right religion demands that everyone offers right deeds. Life is task, and in this God is revealed . . . the radical ethical monotheism is validated in ethical response and conduct. Baeck is not much for mysticism as a way to theological validation. It doesn't fit his philosophy or theology. He wrote against systems of thought (the source of dogmas and inquisitors) and for the "living development of truth" by the prophetic word, itself "a living and personal confession of faith which cannot be circumscribed by rigid boundaries; it possesses a breadth and a freedom carrying within itself the possibilities of revival and development." (27)
ReplyDeleteOf course he was writing for Judaism, but he appreciated Christianity and Jesus (the older brother whom he loved). For him, life for the Jews means encountering God in daily life. He defended the Pharisees, by the way. Could Jews overemphasize action? Yes, of course. But, in Jesus, Baeck sees a "genuine Jewish character" whose true identity, whose first apprentices and apostles, whose teachings, indeed his whole life, were Jewish. So Baeck regards his "older brother" Jesus as the one who started (through ethical teaching and action at least) "a religion which fulfilled and still fulfills a gigantic, world historical mission." (58) His major criteria included that through Christianity Jewish ethics could be taught worldwide.
So go some initial suggestions. More to the point of your column about the "perichoresis" (re: "ontological intermingling" of God and cosmos: see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), I see some similarity between Sydnor's explanations and Baeck's "Religion of Polarity" (Essence of Religion, 1905) humanistic yet ancient as ancient Judaism, expressed often in "metaphysical poetry, an open language which strikes at the limits of theology, desirous not so much of producing a system as of indicating a direction in which an intermingling of the rational and non-rational bring us to the knowledge of the twofoldness of human existence." (10) Baeck's passages on "Perfection and Tension" (174) attract me: Man's experience of himself as "belonging to an infinity." "All creation wants to be revelation . . . ." Putting the finite into the Infinite, says Friedlander, Baeck "opens the beyond to the incursions of man; . . . life is the constant onward surge." There is no static God, humankind is not static, but has a dynamic existence." It is an "elastic distance" the produces dynamic and kinetic creativity and revelation. (175)
Upon reading your comment on the perichoresis, I immediately thought of Baeck's exposition, of the interpenetration of experience and life that is dancing, but also is far more. Friedlander writes, "Baeck continues by stressing this Jewish tradition, this time with the Talmudic stress on man's ethical action as being "something even greater than the creation of the earth and sky." (175-176)
Friedlander worked hard to summarize the meaning he found in Baeck. I cannot communicate it all. But I see in Christianity and Judaism the opportunity to recognize what Sydnor advocates: that the creation is not finished, nor the ethical development of humankind. Both are models of the need to continue relating and witnessing--yes, to the ends of the earth but by "dancing": better so in perichoresis one with another and God than in the closures of dogma and clan.
This is Patrick Crews posting as anon because I don't have a Blogger account and don't want one.
ReplyDeleteThese days I appreciate this perspective more in silence than talking about it. I remember speaking of it back in the day at Fukuoka International Church where I presented it using the mathematical metaphor of the Mobius strip with its two but one side.
My first encounter with this teaching of spiritual intimacy was in the novels of the Christian author and poet, Charles Williams.
He called it, "Co-inherence." he presented it as the relational principle of the father, Son, and Holy Ghost; how Christ and his church relate to each other; and how the Body of Christ lives in and through each other.
Part of me still wants to experience and participate in spiritual community, but among other things that I'm so introvert and prone to strike off on my own tends to put a buffer zone between me and other people. Also my attempts to cultivate such a Unity have more often been met by the resistance of others buffer zones and "boundaries."
At best for me it keeps reminding me to Include and realize that I'm not apart from the people who exclude, nor they apart from me.