Blake Ostler's presentation at the Sunstone Symposium went a lot different than I thought it would. I didn't expect Blake to be as understandable, down-to-earth, and personal as he was. Blake spoke about LDS testimony and spiritual experiences--and he wasn't dry at all. In fact, near the beginning of his talk, he told of an experience he had when he was age 15. Sitting in the high school gym, a girl he didn't know well sat next to him, and he was prompted to tell her that God wanted her to stop thinking about suicide. This turned out to be an important message, since she was already planning the act. Blake argued that spiritual experiences are real. (Well, he actually says, "attacks claiming that such experiences are not trustworthy because they are merely ephemeral emotions are based on a caricature and unjustified reduction." It is Blake, after all.) Blake testified that it is not irrational for us to believe and trust our spiritual feelings. He also preached a "radical inclusivism," where we are called to be open to the spiritual experiences of others, including evangelicals. He cautioned that we should recognize that our experience does not mean that we know anything, that we should not feel morally superior because of it, and that we should remain open to doubt. He explored the idea that spiritual experience cannot be produced at will. He concluded that religious experience has no meaning without a life lived in pursuit of this knowledge.
Blake's presentation seemed to generate a great deal of controversy among the audience. The respondent, Bill Heersink from Salt Lake Theological Seminary, praised Blake for his "holistic view of humans that doesn't try to divorce the mind and soul," but nevertheless disagreed with his definition of spiritual experience. Several of the questions at the end likewise asked for further clarification. One young man in particular questioned Blake's view of spiritual experience. The young man told of an experience of his own in the MTC. He prayed to know his status regarding a girlfriend and was given a strong confirmation that he would marry the girl. When she later "Dear Johnned" him, it was devastating.
I was quite surprised to hear Blake respond that the young man's experience was not a valid one, since it had later been proved to be false. I thought Blake's answer went against his explanation of "radical inclusivism" earlier in his talk. Blake saw his own experience in high school to be valid since the girl was actually thinking of suicide, but the young man's experience was different since he did not end up marrying his girlfriend.
I believe this is a problematic way of looking at spiritual experience. Encounters with the Divine tend to be nebulous and not easily interpreted. I would be much more willing to see the young missionary's experience as a real manifestation of the Holy Spirit, sent for comfort and aid at a difficult time. Perhaps the interpretation was in error, but the experience was undeniable.
I appreciated and agreed with the points in Blake's presentation. I found it comforting to hear such an erudite and intellectual assertion that we can "know with a surety" the reality of the Spirit in our lives. However, I was quite put off by the application of his own principles in his response to the young returned missionary. I would like to see a greater acceptance of spiritual experience within and among religions.
A sexy poem for your weekend
16 hours ago
11 comments:
I also find it important to recognize that the Spirit can talk to all people and in all different ways. I've always assumed that is true and it always surprises me when I run into people who assume that Mormons have a monopoly on communication with God. I also find that response to the young man perplexing; perhaps his spiritual experience was "true", but it also depended on the free will of the girl.God isn't going to force people to do things. One of the most difficult and perplexing things about Earth life for me is figuring out how to relate to each other as people; how to balance our needs, feelings, and experiences with those of other people--other people who usually have completely different needs, feelings, and experiences. If my "truth" is radically different from your "truth", what does that mean?
I missed this one, so thanks for your summary. Sounds like I need to get the audio, for sure.
Without passing judgment on Ostler's response (I wasn't there), let me say that there is a qualitative difference between his experience with the suicidal girl and the questioner's experience with the Dear Johner. As hinted at by foxyj, the difference involves the free agency of the other person. Ostler received a revelation of a current situation and God's will concerning that situation. No problem there. The questioner interpreted his experience as a revelation of a future situation, which is very different as it depends on the actions of the other party. If I had been responding to his question (and were much quicker on my feet than I actually am), I would have suggested that the questioner should have interpreted his experience as relating to the present situation; e.g. "You should treat this girl as if she were your future wife." That interpretation does not presume to bind the other party.
Good points, foxyj and last lemming. I'm sure Blake would probably have more to add were he to make a more considered response.
i found blake's paper very wanting. while he claimed that religious experiences were a priori valid methods of attaining 'truth' (and were the lenses which decided what counted as a evidence and argument), he then used the experience of the dear johnning as evidence that the affective qualia that followed the prayer was not a religious experience. so basically, he was going directly against his stance.
i think blake needs to move away from his view that religious experience can be understood regardless of any other experiences, but more to an understanding of religious experience as a learning process, where religious experiences are ultimately judged by what follows from them, and by trial and error we become more acute in understanding those experiences.
and finally, i think brian birch would find it complimentary to be called a 'young man.' he's in his 40's.
Hey Bored, we did meet briefly at Sunstone, during the lunch on Friday. I was on the other side of Paula. It was nice to meet ya!
Oh, that's who you are! You know some of my deep dark secrets, and I didn't even remember your name! [hides head in shame]
Narrator, what--are you trying to say 40's isn't young???
Blake Ostler's faith is refreshing, intriguing, and frustrating to me at the same time.
I attended the panel discussion on "Innoculating the Saints" (teaching them smaller, less-white-washed and more-difficult-and-complex issues earlier in life so when they are confronted with them later in life, they don't have such a faith crisis). Out of the four panelists, Blake was really the only one who spoke against "innoculation," arguing that it is the individual's responsibility to seek out - in faith - compelx issues; and not the church's responsibility to present them.
The paradox for me is that by speaking at Sunstone, teaching difficult issues from a faith perspective, and being open about his own experiences confronting difficult issues, it seems that "innoculating the saints" is exactly what Blake Ostler is doing.
As far as spritiual promptings/experiences that turn out to be "wrong", the closest I've come to undersstanding them is through the movie the Matrix. The woman "prophet" who could be said to have spiritual promptings about the future or about what she should say doesn't necessarily predict events - she communicates what a person needs to hear in the moment. I wonder if, perhaps, spiritual experiences that feel as though God is speaking to us are meant to get us where we need to go in the moment and not necessarily promises about future events.
it seems that "innoculating the saints" is exactly what Blake Ostler is doing.
My thought is that people at Sunstone or on the internet are in the mode of seeking out information and discussion. Blake isn't teaching in a church context but in a context where he knows people are in a different mode.
The fact that so many spiritual experiences are nebulous is probably what fosters a general mistrust of them in the first place. Especially suspect are the spiritual experiences of those whose judgment and discernment were already in question.
I'll have to listen to see if his definition of valid spiritual experiences includes having the experience prove to be correct, as opposed to simply having been experienced. Perhaps he felt the young man's experience fell into that ephemeral emotion category he referenced earlier, just one that was not unjustifiedly reduced...
Post a Comment