It is obvious that we have a widely evolving group of individuals and organizations already moving forward with the concept of “Interspirituality.” During the last meeting of the “working group” at the Dawn of Interspirituality Conference, Diane asked the question whether we should have a “network” and not an “association.” I want to jump on that question right away.
The word “association” has very defined outcomes for IRS and legal purposes. Do we want “By-laws” and rules to govern our operation? These are requirements of associations. If we can’t even agree on the spelling of “interspirituality/ inter-spirituality / InterSpirituality” then we are not ready for by-laws. Those of us who are already in the process of ordaining “interspiritual ministers” and clergy cannot afford to subscribe to an outside association that jeopardizes our status as a “church.” IRS tax rules say that “interfaith groups” are NOT eligible for 501c3 status as a church. As we are starting to define interspirituality, it will be considered a form of interfaith dialogue. Those of us who are promoting interspirituality beyond the dialogue to become a form of human spirituality cannot go back. For now, I ask that we consider this a “network” of interspiritual individuals and organizations that are promoting the values of interspiritual interactions and relationships between people of different faiths and practices.
So what do YOU think?
Tim Miner OUnI
Thanks for the good suggestion, Tim. Let’s see how this resonates with other folks, but I think the word “network” does describe the stage of development that we are now in.
I am in the process of adding the names of those who attended our sessions in Washington.
I agree with the using ”network.” Not only is it a better word that does give the impression of an organization but it also provides me, at least, a nexus, with the understanding of interconnectedness.
This is why Ken Kitatani said ffrom 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