‽istis ponders the Parliament of the World’s Religions and a Declaration (weekending August 19th 2023)
This week the ‘Parliament of the World’s Religions’ has been
meeting in Chicago, USA – and ‽istis has read and ‘wwwexplored’[i] following
leads back to the first not-too-dissimilarly-named gathering in 1893[ii] when
Charles Carroll Bonney exclaimed: ‘This day the sun of a new era of religious
peace and progress rises over the world, dispelling the dark clouds of
sectarian strife. This day a new flower blooms in the gardens of religious
thought, filling the air with its exquisite perfume.’
A chapter by Karl-Josef
Kuschel in the book ‘A Global Ethic. The Declaration of the World’s Religions’[iii] seeks
to provide context for that first meeting, including a tour around the
potential influence on religion of modernity, Eurocentrism, the apparent
dominance of Christianity and, related, who and which religions were not
invited or under-represented in 1893.
Kuschel’s chapter then
provides further context - scanning the next hundred years and all that has
happened across the world and in relation to matters of religion up to a
centenary ‘Parliament’ also held in Chicago in 1993. Then, 8,000
representatives and attendees pondered such weighty matters as: how can
religious traditions work together on world critical issues? A declaration was
made: the ‘Declaration Toward a Global Ethic’. It is this which has been the
primary focus of ‽istis’ pondering and wondering this week (back to that
shortly).
Since 1993, further
meetings of the ‘Parliament of the World’s Religions’ have taken place:
·
1999
(Cape Town) considering critical issues facing the world; matters of religious,
spiritual and cultural identity; approaches to interreligious dialogue
·
2004
(Barcelona) where four main themes brought structure and focus: mitigating religiously
motivated violence; access to safe water; the fate of refugees; the elimination
of external debt in developing countries
·
2009
(Melbourne) with topics including: Aboriginal reconciliation; sustainability
and climate change through the lens of indigenous spiritualities; environmental
issues; spirituality of youth
‘Parliaments’
were held in 2015, 2018 and then ‘online’ in 2021 as religions sought to
respond to a global pandemic and its legacy.
So
much to consider and indeed you might choose to follow some leads and explore
further…
But what about this
‘Declaration Toward a Global Ethic’, presented (with more or less consultation)
to the assembly in Chicago thirty years’ ago?
The
book (see endnote iii) arrived, a day after ordering thanks to the
extraordinary power of capitalism’s logistics. It invoked both delight (a book
to hold and read and make notes on and about, a chance to deploy the customary
underlining green pencil of student days) and some consternation, not least at
the air and other miles involved, the automation and probably the low wages for
the human links that still remain in the supply chain.
Hans
Küng, Swiss Christian priest, theologian and author[iv] was
clearly the leading figure in the work to produce what became known as the
‘Declaration Toward a Global Ethic'.[v]
In a chapter of the book (from p. 43) that lays open on the desk now, Küng
outlines ‘The History, Significance and Method of the Declaration Towards a
Global Ethic’, work that had started with an appeal by Professor Swidler
(Temple University, Philadelphia; editor of the Journal of Ecumenical
Studies) for a composition of a global ethic – to be drafted,
circulated for revision and with a view to eventual adoption by all the
religions and ethical groups of the world (no less!). The council preparing for
the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions persuaded Küng to prepare the
draft and manage the process of initial consultation and presentation.
‽ What emerged?
At the risk of reductive
simplification, it seems essential to point to two principles at the heart of
the Declaration:
·
‘That
every human must be treated humanely!’
·
‘What
you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others!’ Or positively framed:
‘What you wish done to yourself, do to others!’[vi] (versions
of the ‘Golden Rule’)
Four ‘directives’
follow:
1) Commitment to a culture of
non-violence and respect for life
2) Commitment to a culture of
solidarity and a just economic order
3) Commitment to a culture of
tolerance and a life of truthfulness
4) Commitment to a culture of equal
rights and partnership between men and women
A fifth directive was
added in 2018:
5) Commitment to a Culture of
Sustainability and Care for the Earth.
‽istis would
encourage a full perusal of the Declaration itself and of the book from which
much of the information here has come (see iii) for, as usual, that which ‽istis
has found significant may not pique your interest.
The
points below, however, are some wonderings and ponderings that have been
sparked for ‽istis over the past few days, albeit in something of a random
order as time denies the chance to organise thoughts before blog-posting:
‽ What is an ‘ethic’? ‘By a global ethic we mean
a fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal
attitudes…’ without which ‘sooner or later every community will be threatened
by chaos or dictatorship, and individuals will despair.’ (p.21)
‽ What
a task! A declaration that could:
·
reach
and address ‘a deeper ethical level, the level of binding values, irrevocable
criteria and inner basic attitudes’
·
secure
a consensus – a moral unanimity (and the declaration was subscribed to by
representatives from many faiths and groups: Bahai, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism,
Christianity, Native religions, Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Islam, Neo-pagans,
Sikhs, Taoists Theosophists, Zoroastrians and Inter-religious organizations…
·
be
related to reality (seeing the world as it really is and not just as it should
be
·
be
generally comprehensible
·
be
one that ‘must be related to reality’, seeing the world ‘as it really is and
not just as it should be’
·
have
a religious foundation – trusting that ‘our often millenia-old religious and
ethical traditions provide an ethic which is convincing and practical for all
women and men of goodwill, religious and non-religious.’ (p.21)
‽ What
a task! A declaration that sought to avoid:
·
reduplicating
the UN Declaration on Human Rights 1948, rather provide ethical support for it
·
being
a political declaration, yet have relevance at economic and political levels
and support efforts towards a just ordering of the economy and of society
·
being
a casuistic moral sermon seeking to make binding statements on every possible
difficult situation
·
being
a philosophical treatise
·
being
an enthusiastic religious proclamation
‽ A definition of and
the importance of religion/s perhaps needs to embrace theism, non-theism,
polytheism and a host of spiritual traditions.
The following terms and
ideas in the declaration seem to ‽istis to be particularly important
and perhaps helpful:
·
spiritual energies –
‘transcendence, elevated consciousness, union with the universe and time’
(p.100)
·
‘trust (quite rational
trust) in an ultimate supreme reality, whatever name this may be given and no
matter what the dispute over its nature may be among the different religions’
(p.59)
·
a religious motivation –
men and women ‘who are convinced that the present empirical world is not the
ultimate, supreme, ‘absolute’ spiritual reality and truth’
·
‘As religious and
spiritual persons we base our lives on an Ultimate Reality, and draw spiritual
power and hope therefrom, in trust, in prayer or meditation, in word or
silence.’ (p.19)
·
the concept of the
‘Absolute’ (p.63 in an interesting discussion of the reasons why Küng was
convinced that ‘If all religions were to be involved in a declaration on a
global ethic and at least no important ones were to be excluded, then one would
have to dispense with naming God…’ (p.61)
·
‘We must… learn to use
language which is inclusive and all-embracing. We suggest we use “Great Being”
or “power of the transcendent” or “Higher Spiritual Authority” instead of God
in reference to the ultimate spiritual reality’ (from a statement read out at
the first session of the 1993 Assembly by one of the Buddhist representatives,
see p.64/65)
·
'The religions can
address men and women at quite other depths: not merely at the levels of rational
calculation, of operations and strategies, but at the level of the heart, the
feelings, the ‘soul’.’ (p.102)
‽ The problems that the
declaration sought to address are spelt out in powerful language – with
religion and the religions not exempt from condemnation:
‘The world is in agony. The
agony is so pervasive and urgent that we are compelled to name its
manifestations so that the depth of this pain can be made clear.
‘Peace eludes us …the
planet is being destroyed … neighbours live in fear …women and men
are estranged from each other …children die!
‘We condemn the abuses of the
Earth’s ecosystems.
‘We condemn the poverty that
stifles life’s potential; the hunger that weakens the human body; the economic
disparities that threaten so many families with ruin.
‘We condemn the social disarray
of the nations; the disregard for justice which pushes citizens to the margin;
the anarchy overtaking our communities; and the insane death of children from
violence.’ (see ‘Introduction to the ‘Declaration’ (p.13, ref. iii), below)
And these words were
proclaimed in and rang around the assembly hall.
Religions were not
exempt:
‘Time and again we see leaders
and members of religions incite aggression, fanaticism, hate, and xenophobia –
even inspire and legitimate violent and bloody conflicts. Religion is often
misused for purely power-political goals, including war. We are filled with
disgust.’ (p.17)
And yet, ‽istis wonders
at what seems to be limited, if any, analysis of the reasons for the agony of
the world[vii],
its people, the Earth and life upon it?
And ‽istis thinks back
to previous blogs pondering potential links between ‘problem-locus’ and ‘solution-focus’
(that the way a problem is framed may be linked directly to the proposed
response and vice versa), the possible importance of identifying root cause
lest solutions target symptomology primarily; maybe the value of explanations.
Maybe the clearest
analysis is on p.19 – linking past and present and future, linking problem and
solution: ‘Today we possess sufficient economic, cultural and spiritual
resources to introduce a better global order, but old and new ethnic, social,
economic, and religious tensions threaten the peaceful building of a better
world.’ But what lies beneath such tensions…?
‽ So what? solutions
identified and proposed, a mechanism and a process…
After the words of
condemnation and identifying the ‘fundamental crisis’ experienced by and across
the world, with ‘Hundreds of millions of human beings increasingly suffering…’
(p.17), the Declaration in its call for a new global ethic (without which there
could be no new global order) suggests that ‘we are convinced that, despite
their frequent abuses and failures it is the communities of faith who bear a
responsibility to demonstrate that such hopes and ideals (…a vision of peoples
living peacefully together, of ethnic and ethical groupings and of religions
sharing responsibility for the care of the Earth…), and standards can be
guarded, grounded and lived.’ (p. 19/20).
In brief, the
Declaration expresses the belief that ‘the basis for an ethic’ that will end
the world’s agony (p.13) ‘already exists. This ethic offers the possibility of
a better individual and global order, and leads individuals away from despair
and societies away from chaos.’ (p.14).
‘We affirm that a common
set of core values is found in the teachings of the religions, and that these
form the basis of a global ethic.’
‘We confirm that there
is already a consensus among the religions which can be the basis for a global
ethic – a minimal fundamental consensus concerning binding values, irrevocable
standards and fundamental moral attitudes.’ (p. 18).
An exhortation to ‘act
humanely’ and the ‘golden rule’ is located in each religion, it is suggested.
And for each of the ‘four
irrevocable directives’ (from p.24) a formula of words is offered and
repeated:
Directive 1: Commitment to a
culture of non-violence and respect for life. ‘In the great ancient religious
and ethical traditions of humankind we find the directive… You shall not kill!
Have respect for life!’ (p.25)
Directive 2: Commitment to a
culture of solidarity and a just economic order. ‘In the great ancient
religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the directive… You shall
not steal!’ ‘Deal honestly and fairly!’ (p.27)
Directive 3: Commitment to a
culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness. ‘In the great ancient
religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the directive… You shall
not lie! Speak and act truthfully!’
Directive 4: Commitment to a
culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women. ‘In the great
ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the directive…
You shall not commit sexual immorality!’ ‘Respect and love one another!’
The ‘sacred scriptures
offer… a maximal ethic, compared with which the Declaration Toward a Global
Ethic can offer only a minimal ethic. But that does not of course mean an
ethical minimalism.’ (p.73)
The search is not for ‘a
single unified religion beyond all existing religions, and certainly not the
domination of one religion over all others’ - p.21; indeed Küng suggests that a
consensus can only be achieved in relation to a global ethic if ‘one leaves
aside all differences of faith and ‘dogma’, symbols and rites, and concentrates
on common guidelines for human conduct’.
The transformation
required is perhaps almost by necessity not to be found in any
of the religions’ individual ‘salvation’ / ’redemption’ / ’transcendent or
higher state’ narratives; nor in any capacity for religions to ‘solve the
environmental, economic, political, and social problems of Earth’ - but in the
religions’ capacity or potential to provide ‘what obviously cannot be attained
through economic plans, political programmes or legal regulations alone’ (p.22)
– and that is:
‘a change in the inner
orientation, the whole mentality, the ‘hearts’ of people, and a conversion from
a false path to a new orientation for life’ (p.22)
Indeed, it is suggested
(p.34) that ‘Historical experience demonstrates the following: Earth cannot be
changed for the better unless we achieve a transformation in the consciousness
of individuals and in public life.’
And the Declaration ends
by repeating the Earth-changing message (p.36) and the role of a common global
ethic:
‘Earth cannot be changed for the
better unless the consciousness of individuals is changed. We pledge to work
for such transformation in individual and collective consciousness, for the
awakening[viii] of
our spiritual powers…
And just how is that to
be achieved? asks ‽istis…
a) through commitment ‘…we
commit ourselves to a common global ethic, to better mutual understanding, as
well as to socially-beneficial, peace-fostering and Earth-friendly ways of
life’
b) through reflection,
meditation, prayer or positive thinking, for a conversion of the heart.’
Perhaps that is indeed
the mechanism: ‘individuals and public life’ optimally consciousness-ed; people
whose thoughts, feelings, instinctive responses and behaviour are transformed
through reflection, prayer, meditation positive thinking and converted
hearts…
The solution is
presented as being a process, for the declaration ‘cannot be an end; it can
only be the means to an end. And what comes of it will depend on everyone, on
you and me.’ (p.76)
But ‽istis cannot help but wonder:
a) whilst the Declaration
‘must be related to reality’, seeing the world ‘as it really is and not just as
it should be’, can the charge be made that this reality requirement might also
relate to:
·
people/individuals
as they are and not just as they should be.
Can reflection, meditation, prayer
or positive thinking lead to a conversion of the heart’? and is that enough to
power any systemic, structural, organisational, political, social and cultural
changes that seem also to be required?
b) just how potentially transformative
is the power of religions? It is claimed that they have all held individually the
‘common set of core values’, that these are ‘found in the teachings of the
religions’ and it is these already-in-existence values that form the basis of
the global ethic drafted, accepted, signed up to and declared to the world in
1993.
But if these values (‘the truth’
that ‘is already known’ p.14), and the influences of the religions within which
they are already located (with all their respective ways of transforming /
redeeming / saving / sanctifying / guiding or leading people to a higher state)
have not seemingly managed in the hundreds of years before 1993 to:
· prevent
the world’s agony,
· bring
about the elusive peace,
· prevent
the risk of the destruction of the planet,
· quell
the fear of neighbours,
· reconcile
the estrangement of men and women,
· stop
the death of children (from p.13 and the start of the ‘Introduction’)
then ‽istis is not so sure that:
·
a
declaration, a mass signing, a written or verbal commitment, a pledge to work
together for transformation in individual and collective consciousness, for the
awakening of our spiritual powers;
·
reflection,
meditation, prayer or positive thinking
is going to make a
difference or is going to be any more effective in ensuring that the values are
‘lived in heart and action.’ (p.14)
From perusing the agenda and
issues to be addressed at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago
this week, it could be argued that 30 years on from the first Declaration, the agony
continues and may be worse than ever…
So, the week ends in the UK with ‘Storm
Betty’ bringing low grey cloud over everything locally, whipping winds, driving
rain, stormy seas… and somehow it seems
to reflect ‽istis‘ mood after these ponderings.
A verse from the Bible comes to mind, loved by a father who did not seem
to lose faith and hope, despite… ‘I will
lift up mine eyes unto the hills, From whence cometh my help?’ (Psalm 121 v 1, from the sacred scriptures of more than one faith).
The help may or may not come from the Lord… (indeed probably not, given
the Declaration’s expectation that all differences of faith and dogma would be
left aside – and given that what to do with ‘the name of God’ was problematic),
but ‽istis can only ponder on. At the moment however, this weekending even the
‘they are always there’ hills are shrouded…
Yet, and yet… ‽istis wonders in some amazement and gratitude that such a
‘Declaration Toward a Global Ethic’ even exists - that the thought occurred,
the need was seen; the discussion happened; the wrestling was done with what
was desirable, necessary, possible and practical; the consensus was reached; the
declaration was made; the assent and signatures were given; that many people
continue to commit to better mutual understanding, to socially-beneficial, peace-fostering, and Earth-friendly ways of life'; to have faith; to imagine; to hope…
©‽istis
NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme
and past blog entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t
necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’:
@Pistis_wonders. Twitter ‘follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue
welcome...
[i] Trying out this concocted word… Has ‽istis invented
a new one..? Useful addition to the dictionary or pretentious contrivance…‽
Hmmm, not sure…
[ii] Many references including: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_World%27s_Religions#:~:text=The%20Parliament%20of%20the%20World%27s,trustees%20elected%20from%20various%20faiths & https://parliamentofreligions.org/
[iii] ‘A Global Ethic. The Declaration of the Parliament of the
World’s Religions’. Ed and with commentaries by Hans Küng and Karl-Josef
Kuschel. Continuum, New York/London 2006
[iv] …and there is so much more that could be said. Here is a
starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%BCng
[v] See iii) p.76 and see Küng’s book: ‘Global Responsibility’
published in 1990 and in an English-American edition in 1991: ‘Global
Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic.’
[vi] Please see earlier blogs referencing the ‘Golden Rule’ and
the ‘Charter of Compassion’ including: https://pistisrec.blogspot.com/2021/04/pistis-reclaims-golden-rule-weekending.html & https://pistisrec.blogspot.com/2022/07/pistis-ponders-being-awake-weekending.html & https://pistisrec.blogspot.com/2023/06/pistis-ponders-values-and-ai-weekending.html
[vii] Can ‽istis say this… a tad arrogant or at best naïve?!
[viii] What???? we are going to have to be woke????
