I want to lend my voice to Tim Miner’s push for a network rather than an association. As soon as we organize interspirituality (by whatever spelling) into an association we introduce issues of ego and power that we might otherwise avoid. As soon as we set rules we have rulers, and we should wait at least 300 years before we raise up our own Constantine.
The impulse to organize is a modernist response to a postmodern phenomenon; and it is doomed to fail. Any attempt to formalize what is essentially a dynamic and emerging process will only dam the process (at worst) or become irrelevant to it (at best). Nobody knows what interspirituality is or where it is going–that is what makes it interesting and creative. And all efforts to define it are just egoic efforts to own it, direct it, and lead it.
There is no need to define or organize interspirituality. There is a need to foster conversation among those of us working in the flow of whatever is emerging spiritually in the 21st century, and a well-built and maintained network can do this.
This is why Ken Kitatani said for the beginning that the association would need to be shepherded by people not in the old egoic framework and truly understanding Interspirituality. I think that is a threshold someone has to try for. In NYC now we have a group of 26 leaders committed to finding a “group/collective consciousness” together in a new “association” they have created. I suppose that “network” is trying for the same thing. My own vision was that the “Association” should have a yin/yang structure– a “tight side” by those truly shepherding it and a “loose side” with lots of room for everything inevitably going on etc. Like I say, someone has (at least to me) to try to meet that new evolutionary threshold.
I am down with a severely injured back, so can’t say much more, esp. since I have more commitments on the road very soon.
Best and love
kurt
As a newcomer to the discussion, let me weigh in on the side of network rather than association for all the good reasons that have been mentioned. Amen. That said, I think Kurt’s yin/yang analysis is spot on. Regarding YANG, if you want tax-deductible donations you need a 501c3, which means bylaws and and a board. I think that can work (in evading too much of anyone’s ego) if a lot of leadership rotation is built into the structure. And lots of sharing of responsibilities, with input from all. In terms of YIN, a network is a perfect environment to give folks their own freedom while being connected to a larger community of like-minded, or should I say, like-Spirited, folks.
We need to decide what “interspirituality” is before we assess the need for an association. I stand by the desire for a network. I think the model we need to use is that of the World Wide Web. Everyone self declares membership into the group of those claiming a part of “interspirituality.” How it is done and used is up to the individual and the group. Who is to say who is “interspiritual” and who is not? That is a self contradiction. What do you think?
How a-bout a vernacular definition, which may involve common parlance for more discernment and inevitable deliberation and election? A definition worth considering here: Spirituality is any human effort which tries to unite with Divinity. If we accept this as a working definition of spirituality, how may the prefix inter be associated with it?
Thay offers all of us Interbeing as a term with ontological and teleological significance, yet not common. Interfaith has some meaning in common use.
Please consider using the category called “Defining Interspiritulity” for this discussion.
I’m going to try to stir the pot a bit here…While I feel in some ways it is safe to say, “everyone who wants to can join”, I also think it dodges a difficult question (and for me, an important one). Does this mean we leave our discernment at the doorstep? What happens when someone signs up whose interpretation of being “interspiritual” is some ridiculous ‘tantric’ sex path? Something I couldn’t just condone but would feel responsible to forcefully steer people away from? I bring this up because it is something I have already had some experience with (an incident in relation to “New Monasticism” where we actually had to exclude someone from continuing on with our discussions because of what this person was engaged in, and this was someone who was genuinely trying to do their best and being honest about everything, but it was simply not something I could condone; people’s souls and spiritual lives were being damaged, in my opinion).
There was also a person some of us were alerted to by Diane, who was claiming he was Brother Wayne’s successor, and was basically telling everyone else to “f-off” because they weren’t interspiritually enlightened like him (bless his soul, I’m fairly certain he was suffering from a mental illness). Point being, do we allow any organization or teacher to be listed as part of the “network”, right along side Interspiritual Meditation and New Monasticism? Do we want to be seen as legitimizing some of this stuff?
I feel we need to build a “network” we can stand behind and be proud of, a container for “interspirituality” that will be fruitful and stand the test of time, be life giving to people; and that this will require some discernment on our part…
I do, of course, feel there is room for healthy disagreement, and different ideas of what “interspirituality” is, but there are also many abusive and downright damaging trends in spirituality today (and these will continue to arise in “interspirituality”), and we should be able to acknowledge this and have some responsibility for calling these out in a dignified way, not out of some sense of “power”, but out of a genuine concern for people’s souls and spiritual growth.
So, of course, this is one of the touchy issues…my own inclination is to have a small, but diverse “committee” of people whom we feel we can trust to stake out these types of decisions. Small enough so a genuine dialog can take place, and diverse enough to have a range of opinions (some broad and inviting, others more discerning, maybe one more traditional and a few ‘rascals’ as well).
Just to note, there are many places that ‘network’ and list a tremendous amount of ‘interspiritual resources’ for everyone (like Kurt’s ‘Multiplex”, spirituality and practice website, or even just googling “interspirituality”, so what is the need for this, if it is not to be something that can have some “oomph” behind it?
Just a quick note to say Thank You! for those who are setting this up…and will chime in as a new voice in this discussion. It does seem that “network” for the time being does reflect our current identity. I feel my contributions may be a bit on the “loose” side, (YIN) as a newly ordained Interfaith/Interspiritual Minister…still trying to find my way on how to “define” this wonderful work…at the same time, trying not to stifle my voice for lack of the correct verbiage.