Sacred Reality in a Cosmic Theology

Sacred Reality - the beginning of theology



A central theological principle:

In the general study of religions there is a concept which is considered the starting point for understanding and articulating the theological system of any faith. This most basic concept of religion, known as sacred reality (Cunningham & Kelsay), is the foundation upon which any theology and/or religious morality system is built. It is with sacred reality, or more precisely, the ontology or "nature of being," of sacred reality, that we begin to investigate or formulate the belief structure of any religion. Every religion will have some key element of its understanding of the cosmos that is central to its theology; this element can be called its sacred reality. When we understand the specific sacred reality, also known as absolute reality, as the central point in a given religious system, we can begin to clearly see the paradigm or world view of the participants of that faith. Furthermore, we are able to follow how the resultant theological, cosmological, liturgical and moral patterns form. Sacred reality can be seen expressed in various religions in any of a multiplicity of forms: utopia or the perfect world, heaven as divine presence, divine law, absolute forms and sacred order to name just a few. As we begin to examine the beliefs and practices of any faith we must ask the key question: What is the nature of the sacred reality of this faith? With the answer to this question we have set the stage for a thoughtful, reasoned approach to understanding any faith.

Sacred reality in a cosmic system:

Many cosmic religions, ancient and modern, have a view of sacred reality which is, at its most basic level, a concept of sacred order. This sacred order applies to the whole world of the particular people, extending through every level of existence. Gods, spirits, the people, the land, tradition, myth and all other aspects of the cultural system are reflected in and supported by the sacred reality. All things are as they should be when they are aligned with the sacred order. While the implementation of sacred order applies throughout all levels of the society it is generally limited to the geographical area which is inhabited by the people of the society. Order is seen as the way of the folk and of the land inhabited by the folk, with order being confined to the social and spiritual institutions of the people and their gods with a strong liminal sense of how far that order extends. Concepts of "the order of the people" do not extend beyond the borders of the people and their "world". When these faiths speak of how the "world" was formed they are generally addressing issues of how the order was given to the land on which they live and how the order was given to the people. So cosmic creation myths most often only apply to the people, the gods of the people, the area in which the people live and to the otherworlds of these people and their gods. Liminality as an active concept provides a strong sense of the edges between what is inside of the system of order and that which is outside of or beyond the system.

Perhaps it is because of the very culturally specific nature of cosmic religions that we do not historically see religious wars or crusades among people who adhere to them. There is no need to convert neighbors or others to embrace a specific religion. Religious pluralism seems to be the norm among the peoples of cosmic faiths. For instance, examine the Ancient Greeks and Macedonians as Alexandros extended his empire while embracing and honoring the gods and ways of the people being conquered. This same pattern was the one that the Romans would later follow by extending their socio-political system without direct assault on the religious systems of the peoples being conquered. Though the Romans did interpret local deities in terms of the Roman pantheon and the Romans carried the worship of their own deities with them setting up temples in newly conquered lands there was no policy of stripping local cult of culturally specific deities. The attitude of these faiths seems to be one of "we will worship our gods on our land and you worship your gods on your land". This type of pluralism is seen today in cosmic religious organizations such as Ár nDraíocht Feín where each local congregation will worship a set of gods specific to the local group identity and in which the various congregations do not necessarily share the same exact set of gods though they often have some gods in common.

The role of clergy:

In these cosmic religions the internal establishment, maintaining and reinforcement of the sacred order are the primary concerns of group religious practice and of group religious leaders. Ceremony, ritual, social custom and law all combine toward the goal of maintaining the sacred order throughout the life of the folk. Often these areas will be under the authority of specialists; as an example, observe the tribal structure of the Celtic peoples who had a priesthood which performed the religious ceremonies, memorized traditional law, conveyed myth and maintained the genealogies of rulers and aristocrats. All of these activities are related to the maintaining of the order among the folk and between the folk and the world, and the priesthood responsible for maintaining that order will be charged with these functions. The primary focus of these cosmic clergy is going to be orthopraxis (Cunningham & Kelsay) or the observance of certain standards or religious practice. Cosmic clergy maintain the order of the egregore or group spiritual identity within the folk and the relationship of that egregore with gods and spirits.

Law and morality:

Law and morality will also follow this sense of sacred order with the conceptions of right action being based on how it maintains the order of the culture. The result of this can be seen in the Brehon laws of Ireland which are based on the earlier law systems employed during the cosmic religious period. This was a living law system, in that it operated on a certain set of principles designed to maintain order within the society, and so the law served the order. Legal cases were brought in a way that more resembled the modern civil court of law, in which the case is between the parties directly involved, and in which the victim versus the perpetrator. Morality within modern cosmic systems tends toward being ethically-based with the primary concern being the consequences or result of the proposed action. The rightness or wrongness of an action is judged by the projected and intended result on the parameters of order. This type of morality is what ethicists call teleological (Zeuschner) in nature. When actions are taken to unbalance the order, we often see the primary legal concern being "how may the perpetrator rebalance this offense" with the reestablishment of order being the primary objective.

Time:

Time in a cosmic system often works in a way that we would call circular with a pattern of periodic renewal. In many ancient languages the word used for "world" is also a word used for "year" (Eliade). One year may not necessarily be cosmically connected in a historical sense to the year before or after it or in a sense in which one year progresses into another. As a new year starts, the world is cosmically recreated and starts fresh and in tune with the sacred order . Often the people will celebrate this renewal with a rite in which they participate ritually in the process of renewal, sometimes performing a ritual version of the original, world-creating cosmic sacrifice. As an example of this renewal we may examine the Gaelic festival of Samhain (summers end) in which the people have a celebration of cosmic renewal which takes place on a day out of time which is neither part of the preceding year nor part of the succeeding year. This day between years is also a day between worlds in which various realms come together and the borders between the realms of spirits, gods and ancestors thin or collapse. This day is seen as a cosmic crisis where order is lost and the world returns to chaos. This cosmic crisis lasts until the cosmos is safely recreated and the order reestablishes the world in a way that is for that very first moment in perfect alignment with the sacred order. The new "world-year" will then progress normally in the proper order until the process of renewal must be repeated.

Health:

Good health in a cosmic system is considered a characteristic of maintained personal order. When a person becomes ill there is an idea that something is out of order often with a piece of the person missing or stolen. Observing the healing rites of a Siberian Shaman we see the healer often undertakes a spiritual journey beyond the edge of this world and into another realm with the goal to find and retrieve the missing soul or spirit fragment of the patient. The goal in this healing technique being to return the piece to the rightful place in the order of the person and so to return that person to good health. In some cultures we see healing facilitated by the reciting or singing of the original cosmogonic myth over the person who is ill and in so doing the patient is returned to the original state of order. Health can also be negatively affected by the intentional disruption of the order of an individual. And so we see the ancient Greeks using a wax figure of an intended victim and piercing it with a spike in order to disrupt the order of the object of the curse. Health, be it good or ill is a direct result of the maintenance or loss of order.

Summary of points so far:

So far in this article we have examined how the most central concept of theology, that of sacred reality, is the foundation of any individual system. In order to understand and articulate any particular theological system we are best served by starting our investigation with the nature of the specific sacred reality in the religion which is the object of our study. We have also observed that in many cosmic religions the concept of sacred reality is seen as sacred order. This sacred order directs and defines the paradigm of the people in the cosmic system. We have seen how theology, morality, liturgy, law and the very structure of the society all flow from this central sacred order.

Further examination:

I will now engage in a short examination of sacred reality in a contrasting religious system and see how a different approach to this most central theological principle generates an entirely different religion. I have chosen a form of universalism which embraces a radical monotheism and which is the dominant religious system in modern western culture. The theology of the monotheistic Christian religion also known as classic theism has had a large influence on the social institutions of the modern Western world. The paradigm of this newer religion is so very different from that of the world view of cosmic religions that there is a great deal of misunderstanding when these religions come in contact with one another. As cosmic religion is being revived in the West it will come into contact with classic theism at an ever increasing rate. With this constant contact, leaders of cosmic religions would do well to examine the basic theological principles of the monotheists in order to understand why they have such a radically different paradigm and how that paradigm sees the world.

A contrasting system:

Sacred reality in this radical monotheistic system holds that there is only one god, that this one god is absolute and that he transcends the universe. This god is the first cause which created the universe, and that the universe is created according to the divine will of this single god. Time in the universe is historical in that it has a defined beginning and is projected to have a defined end. This form of universalism holds that the entirety of creation is subject to this system and that there is only one absolute truth. Divine will is made manifest through divine law which is absolute. This single god is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful) and good. Good is defined by being in accordance with divine law while evil is defined as anything that is not in accordance with divine law. An evil act is considered a sin which is a violation of the divine will by breaking of the covenant established through the inherent authority of divine law. Orthodoxy as correct belief according to an authoritative standard (Reese) takes precedence in the monotheistic system.

Clergy in this system are generally considered to be experts at interpreting and enforcing divine law and so they interact with the people as the representatives of the single god. Morality and legal systems tend to be formalist or deontological meaning that they are based on an obligation to the law without regard to consequences. Any offense of morality is an offense not against the victim but against the divine law. Any sin or offense, being against the authority expressed through the law, can only be justified or forgiven or punished by the legal authority. We see this view active in our modern criminal court system where a person is placed on trial against the Crown or State as the authority who established the law that was broken. The violation against the victim is not included in the formula for justice because the wrongness of the offense was that it violated the law.

The view of classic Christian monotheists that there is one absolute truth and that this truth is expressed only through the law of one faith is the source for a missionary zeal in which they attempt to spread this truth to others. Awareness of this absolute truth is a gift that they wish to share in order to save others from falsehood. While the intention to save others is usually born of a sincere concern for others and is viewed as an obligation on the part of the faithful, tolerance and pluralism are not values required by the formalist morality system though they may be values held by the individual.

A comparison of systems:

I would like to briefly compare the two systems discussed above in order to see how the fundamental differences in the concepts of sacred reality results in pervasive differences between the resultant worldviews. We have in a cosmic theology a sense of sacred order which gives shape to creation. This sacred order includes the land, gods and people within the system but does not necessarily extend indefinitely to include all of existence. While in the classic theistic system we see an idea of sacred reality being one all-powerful god who transcends all of creation and who establishes creation through his divine authority. Time in a cosmic system tends to be cyclical with a constant pattern of renewal while the Christian system has a historical time with beginning and end.

Clergy in a cosmic system are experts in the maintaining of sacred order and act as an agent of the folk while clergy in the universal system are experts in divine law and often act as an agent for divine authority. Morality in a cosmic system tends toward being teleological with the concern being the effect of an action on the system of order while in the Christian system morality tends to be deontological with the primary concern being whether or not an action is correct according to the rules. Rectification for an immoral act in a cosmic system tends to be made toward the victim of the act while rectification of an immoral act in the universal system is made toward the authority of the law.

Rightness of an individual in a cosmic system tends to be based on a dynamic system of balanced relationships with all aspects of sacred order while rightness in the universal system is considered to be a state of being relative to divine authority. In a cosmic system the individual commits right-action or wrong-action while in the Christian system the individual is in a state of rightness or wrongness based upon their actions being good, in accordance with the law, or evil, in violation of the law.

These two systems, one cosmic, the other universal, differ at the most central level of theology, that of sacred reality. It is this fundamental variance that establishes the numerous differences between these theologies at every subsequent level of the paradigms. Religions often differ for very precisely defined theological reason. We can now see how and why these two religions differ so greatly. The differences here have nothing to do with either one faith or the other being more advanced or more evolved. Here the differences between these religions follow progressive interpretations of the world based upon two very different sacred realities.

Conclusion:

In this article I have explored what I believe to be the most basic and central principle of theology, the principle of sacred reality. I have examined this principle at three different levels. First, I have discussed sacred reality as a general principle from which, I believe, all other principles of any theological system flow. Secondly, I have examined two specific and contrasting views of sacred reality and how both of these views establish a coherent theology at the heart of their particular religious system. Thirdly, I have compared two vastly different sacred realities and the resulting theologies, showing how a difference at the most fundamental level can result in pervasive differences at all levels.

I am convinced that any theological education should start with an understanding of sacred reality first as a general concept and secondly as manifest in the specific religion. All theological discussion be it general discourse or apologetic in nature should begin with an initial description of the sacred reality in the religion being examined. Comparative religious or comparative theological exercises are best served by first articulating the fundamental sacred reality of all faiths examined in order to understand the differences in belief of the most basic level and at all subsequent levels of the faiths.



Referenced Texts:

Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and The Profane. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1959

Lawrence S. Cunningham & John Kelsay, The Sacred Quest. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002

Robert B. Zeuschner, Classical Ethics East and West. New York: McDraw-Hill, 2001