The Return of Religion in France

[Balder]

I just came across a book entitled The Return of Religion in France: From Democratisation to Postmetaph..., which looks like an interesting and possibly fruitful resource for members of this forum.  The link above will take you to the first section of the book (approx 47 pp).

[Edward theurj Berge]

Just reading a few pages I find it interesting the claim that pomo, contrary to kennilingus, "has made religion more accessible and possibly more relevant to people’s lives, particularly in the way traditional forms of spiritual transcendence and metaphysics have been challenged and replaced by new compatible ‘religions of immanence.'" I also appreciate how he's including Caputo in this revival, as the latter indeed incorporates deconstruction into Christianity, as does our buddy Freeman. Much like the point  I make in the integral capitalism thread the same can be applied to religion. We have the true visionaries like Caputo and Freeman actually changing the forms of religion in keeping with postmetaphysics, whereas Wilber is still caught up in many metaphysical aspects of religion (and economics).

[Joseph]

I would be interested to know if 'the return of religion' is mostly an academic exercise or if there is evidence that more of the French people are participating in religion in a meaningful way. In America & England the movement into postmodernism has been a grassroots phenomenon among young evangelicals & anglicans, supported by the work of academics. I wonder if there are similar responses by French catholic & protestant laity.

 

It seems that there has been some healthy debate in the face of the rigid efforts of the Vatican to respond to 'modernity' & the diminished influence of catholicism. Many of the academics appear to be groping towards an enactive spirituality in the face of postmodern pluralism. I liked the quote from Regis Debray.

 

"If you transmit history without knowledge, you reduce religious culture to a simple reminiscence, to a dead culture, to a methodology, and you bypass what is essential. If you transmit knowledge without history, that is if you approach religion without memory, you leave people open to the manipulation of their own emotions, you weaken their resistance to gurus and underground ‘psycho rituals’. In truth, the real challenge in the transmission of a religious culture is this: to manage to hold the two ends of the chain at the same time."

[Joseph]

A few months ago I went to a lecture given by a Joseph Rowe, an American who lives in Paris & has translated books by Jean-Yves Leloup & Regis Debray. He mentioned that France has fairly oppressive laws against non-traditional spiritual groups. This allows them to keep cults such as Scientology in line but the authorities often harass fairly benign groups. This seems to be in keeping with the principle of laicete' mentioned in the chapter above. I am curious if this means that France has less of a spiritual consumer culture than America. Are French spiritual seekers more likely to address & reinterpret more traditional forms of religion, in Ricoeur's sense of a second naivete?

 

Joseph Rowe & his wife are part of a sacred music ensemble that performs a piece called From Cordoba To Jerusalem. I missed the performance when they came through here unfortunately, but there are several good videos on Youtube. This a performance of a verse from The Gospel of Thomas done as a dervish chant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5-xNvw9VBo

[Mary W.]

Very cool link Joseph; thanks.

I'm grooving on the mention of Ricoeur and the second naivete, which have been on my mind these past few days, after noticing Ricoeur's name mentioned in the TOC of the book. I first learned about him just last summer, at Chris Dierkes' workshop on mysticism at the Integral Theory Conference at JFKU. A bit of an aha moment for me, realizing that "second naivete" probably most closely describes my current approach to my faith tradition.

Very cool link Joseph; thanks.

I'm grooving on the mention of Ricoeur and the second naivete, which have been on my mind these past few days, after noticing Ricoeur's name mentioned in the TOC of the book. I first learned about him just last summer, at Chris Dierkes' workshop on mysticism at the Integral Theory Conference at JFKU. A bit of an aha moment for me, realizing that "second naivete" probably most closely describes my current approach to my faith tradition.