[Dialogue] Fwd: Titles, Paradigm Shifts and New Consciousness

Thu Mar 5 13:59:31 EST 2009

Print this Article 

Not a member?Subscribe now! 

Thursday March 05, 2009 

Titles, Paradigm Shifts and New Consciousness

Paul Tillich referred to it as "The Creativity of the Demonic." It has long been my experience that conflict does not have to be destructive; it sometimes leads to new insights and even deep friendships. That lesson came back vividly to me recently when I found myself locked in an increasingly acrimonious argument with my publisher and editor at HarperCollins over the title of my forthcoming book on life after death. When I say acrimonious, I mean just that. They threatened to postpone publication if I didn't agree to a title. I threatened to find another publisher if they postponed it. This intensity led to a decision to have a telephone conference call between the two of them and my wife Christine and me. One would assume that for a conflict to reach this level of disagreement, we must be formidable enemies. That, however, is not the case. I have worked with Harper for almost thirty-five years. My current publisher, Mark Tauber, entered the firm as a publicist and worked closely with me in that capacity years ago. I have watched him climb the corporate ladder, rising to become the head of this major branch of Harper Collins International. He is a multitalented, extremely competent young man with a brilliant future in pu
blishing. He has aided my career in many ways, from recommending me to begin writing this Waterfront column to having my autobiography turned into a play entitled "A Pebble in My Shoe." I am much in his debt. I have worked with my editor, Micky Maudlin, on my last three books. As the text of this new book will reveal, it was Micky who, at a 2007 luncheon in San Francisco with Mark, my wife and me, broke the mental logjam that I was experiencing and gave me a new entryway into this subject, which allowed this manuscript to begin to flow. These were long-term relationships, yet the debate over what to entitle this new book raised deep passions and forced me to seek answers. When I did I began to understand anew the problems that face those of us engaging the modern theological task. That insight makes this a subject worthy of this column. 
To do effective theological work in the 21st century, the limits of the past must be faced. Christians read a New Testament written in the first century, employ creeds shaped in the 4th century and worship with liturgies that primarily reflect the 13th century. Religious life is thus filled with concepts that, if taken literally, are either nonsensical or unbelievable. Most people, nonetheless, still operate out of that ancient past. Intellectually we know that the earth is not the center of a three-tiered universe, that miracles and magic do not operate, that mental illness and epilepsy are not caused by demon possession, and that God does not use the weathe
r patterns or physical sickness to punish sinners. Yet these attitudes are recycled in scripture, creed and liturgy, Sunday after Sunday in our churches. Religious language still does not reflect the impact of such shapers of modern thought as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Freud and Einstein. When I set out, therefore, to write a book on the believability of life after death, I had three choices. First, I could ignore the sizeable theological problems involved and continue to use the language of the past as if nothing had changed. Fundamentalists do that all the time. Second, I could ignore the Christian faith altogether, as too dated to be helpful. Secular thinkers do that regularly. The last option was to break open yesterday's religious paradigm and dispense with the God who keeps record books to assign people to heaven or hell. I had to find a way to move to a new place and to discover a language that would enable me to pursue my subject in a post-religious and even a post-Christian world. This approach required a dramatic shift into a new and different consciousness. Since this was the path I chose, I needed a title to reflect this reality. 

My working title was Dancing with Death, Laughing with Life: My Personal and Professional Journey into the Conviction that LifeIis Eternal. I needed to embrace death as a friend, not as the "final enemy" that Paul said had to be overcome. Death gives passion to life by making every moment unrepeatable and calls me to live life to its fullest. My 
conviction about eternal life deeply challenged traditional religious voices. It drove me into life itself as a new doorway into eternity. My working title captured those things for me, but to my disappointment was completely unacceptable to my friends at Harper. They objected to the word death being used anywhere in the title, saying, "No one buys books on death." They also saw the title as too long and cumbersome, as surely it was. It seemed not important to them that it described the book accurately. They offered a counter proposal: Eternal Life: Final Words on Final Things. I was irritated by that suggestion for two reasons: First, the words Eternal Life form a concept that is surrounded today by such pious religious overtones as to be almost "sappy." It has a "pie in the sky" feeling to it. That view has been used over the centuries primarily to control behavior by promising reward and threatening punishment. It reflects a parental image of God that Freud rendered suspect. Second, I don't think anyone ever says "final words" on any subject, much less this one, so I dismissed that entire title immediately. My Harper friends, however, insisted that the words Eternal Life needed to be used in some form, so I began to search for acceptable modifiers and countered with Eternal Life: Pious Dream or Realistic Hope? with the subtitle My Personal Journey into a New Vision of Eternity. I wanted to signal that this was a serious and deeply personal treatment of a profound subject and that it involved a parad
igm shift. This compromise was acceptable, if not thrilling to all, and the issue seemed s ettled.

When my Harper friends announced this title to their sales people, however, the response was negative. "Too dull and not controversial enough," they said. My publisher suggested that we change it and as an alternative offered To Hell with Heaven! That would be "a shopper stopper," he assured me. I was aghast. It was too cute, too flip, suggesting something quite different from what the book was about. The words heaven and hell are to me so bankrupt as to be unusable. "Heaven" is little more than another name for the sky. "Hell" is so devoid of meaning that people can say "It is as hot as hell" or "It is cold as hell" and mean the same thing.

I felt insulted by this suggestion. Neither my publisher nor my editor, I felt, had any idea what this book was about. I knew the sales people had not read it. Yet they even lobbied for that title. When I rejected this, other titles flowed. I suggested Putting Away Childish Religion to Discover Eternal Life." My Harper friends felt that this might offend religion. "Religion is dying," I retorted. More people think of themselves as spiritual today than they do as religious. They then suggested The Pearly Gates and Abandoning Heaven and Hell in Search of Eternal Life. Their focus was on the readers I had to reach. Mine was on accurately conveying the thought of the book. I began to suspect that it was not my potential readers who were their concern
, but their own comfort levels. With that insight in mind, I tried a new thrust that would reflect my purpose, but use their words, suggesting Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Reward and Punishment, with the subtitle My Personal Journey into a New Vision of Eternal Life. When my editor replied that this title did not convey the substance of the book, I was ready to give up. "That is exactly what the book is about," I countered. That was when I realized that we were not really arguing about titles. In this book I was seeking to develop a new paradigm in order to shift the thinking about the meaning of eternal life to a different place. My Harper friends were reacting out of the old paradigm that they were not willing to abandon. That was why words like Eternal Life, Heaven, Hell and Pearly Gates were important to them. My anger arose from the fact that they kept trying to draw me back to the old paradigm from which I was struggling to free myself and my readers. I wanted to convey to my readers that this book was different, vastly different from the usual approach to life after death.

Operating on that insight I proposed a new title that said this book was different, but by using comfortable words it would not be frightening to traditional believers. My proposal was: Eternal Life: A New Vision. The subtitle was Beyond Religion: Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell. The old words were all there, but this book announced that it was a new vision of eternal life beyond all of=2
0the traditional religious symbols.

While many of my readers might not even know the word paradigm, they would certainly expect something different from this title. Even this did not win Harper's approval. "How can you have a new vision if no one states what the old vision was?" they asked. That was a weak argument, I thought, since the old vision is deep in the culture. By suggesting that this book might propose a new vision of eternal life I was announcing that the old vision was inoperative. I thought the struggle would go on, but my publisher countered by combining the two proposals. From the earlier title he took Eternal Life: Pious Dream or Realistic Hope? For the sub- title he took My Journey into a New Vision, Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell. That appeared satisfactory to all. Three days later, however, they looked again at my last proposal and changed their minds. So the title will be Eternal Life: A New Vision and the subtitle will reveal my direction in its proclamation that this book will journey Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell. This title will move beyond the old paradigm. It will transcend the limits of religion, of parental deities above the sky and of the old reward and punishment mentality on which ecclesiastical power has always rested. It will not deny death, but dance with it. It will seek eternity by walking deeply into life to discover transcendence in deepened consciousness. Will it open people's minds to new possibilities? Time will
 tell. This title debate, however, helped me to understand the deep resistance that brave, enlightened clergy are up against when they try to have their faith engage the real world. 

– John Shelby Spong

Question and Answer 
With John Shelby Spong

Robert Daley, via the Internet, writes: 
Geoffrey Robinson, a Roman Catholic Bishop from Sydney, Australia, has published a book titled Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus. He scheduled a book tour of the U.S., and apparently the Vatican pressured bishops in America to threaten him into rescinding his planned trip. He declined to accede to their demand. Any comment? Also I wonder if he has any relationship to your gay bishop, Gene Robinson. My blessings on your superb work.

Dear Robert,

I have not met Geoffrey Robinson, but I have heard of him for years. A man of awesome integrity, he was chosen by the Catholic Church in Australia to lead their study of and response to the abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests in Australia. He did that with such competence and care that he was applauded by everyone except the Roman Catholic hierarchy, for whom his honest report was too embarrassing to be made public. Honesty often is. Many thought Bishop Robinson should have been appointed Archbishop of Sydney, but this report probably killed his chances. Instead, George Pell, a genuine Neanderthal thinker, was given the position in Sydney and ultimately made the Cardinal Archbi
shop of Australia. Robinson chose to retire rather than to be identified with the Australian Catholic Church headed by George Pell. He wrote this book to chronicle his findings in the abuse scandal and was quite critical about what he felt was the inadequate and even dishonest response of the Catholic Church in Australia and in the Vatican to the abusive practices obviously tolerated for far too long by his church. He also included in this book some cogent criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church that he loves dearly.

The response of the hierarchy of his church has been to try to silence him and marginalize him. I suspect he did not have a warm welcome from Catholic bishops in America.

For what it is worth, however, he has my admiration. I have read his book and commend it to you. It is passionate, open, honest, critical and yet loving of his Catholic tradition. The inability of this Church to listen to the public witness of one of their own is a sign of the weakness and fear present in this Church. I would welcome Geoffrey Robinson to any venue that I could set up. He has much to say that should be heard.

To my knowledge he is not related to Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire and I do not know whether they have ever met.

– John Shelby Spong

Send your questions to support at johnshelbyspong.com 

Print this Article 

Not a member? Subscribe now! 

Thanks for joining our mailing list, elliestock at aol.com, for A New Christianity For A New World on 11/09/2008 
REMOVE me from this list | Add me to this list | Manage my e-mail settings | Contact Customer Service 

4 Marshall Street, North Adams, MA 01247

Subject to our terms of service and privacy policy 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090305/3a380c12/attachment-0001.html>