The Way of Kinship: Origin Story (1)

Introduction to the newsletter

Throughout my life, I've been fixated on the fundamental questions that pertain to existence: Who exactly am I? Does my life have a purpose, or is it meaningless? And does death render everything pointless? These inquiries were integral to my journey towards achieving inner peace and contentment.

Worldview

We all inherit a worldview that offers answers to these questions. I was born into a white middle-class, nominally Christian family in twentieth-century America. I began my quest, seeking answers to life's questions within the only worldview I knew. But I am not one to easily accept an answer without question, and I had many questions.

The Bible was said to contain the answers I sought, so the first leg of my journey was to dive deep into understanding the Bible. The Bible is a book from another time and place, requiring me to study history, cultural anthropology, social linguistics, and ancient languages if I hoped to discover what the original authors intended to say. What I found through my study often differed from what I saw in the various forms of contemporary Christianity. At this point in my journey, I perceived a purpose and meaning to my life and answers to my biggest questions. Encouraged that I was on the right path, I went to graduate school. I obtained a Master of Divinity (M.Div) degree, where I focused on biblical studies and then became a pastor. But this was far from the end of the story. (Note: if you want to read about my theology, see my book on Amazon: Leaving Christianity to Follow Jesus.)

When reading a book from antiquity for answers in contemporary life, you must work out what to do with ancient ideas and beliefs incompatible with what we know in our modern world. Like the belief that the world is flat, on pillars, and covered with a dome within which are the sun, moon, and stars. This belief presents itself in multiple places in the Old Testament. My approach was to see these false beliefs about the natural world as cultural artifacts, part of the worldview of their day that crept into the writing but was not necessary for the philosophical or theological point. But what happens when a false belief about the natural world is necessary for the philosophical or theological point?

My intellectual quest to find answers to the big questions of life and well-being did not start and end with biblical studies. It is important to me that my beliefs are compatible with what we know from science. To evaluate the compatibility of my beliefs with science, I first had to learn more about science, particularly the sciences, which dealt with the nature of reality: particle physics, neural science, and evolution.

Eventually, I hit an impasse with Christianity. The portion of the biblical text I saw as "cultural artifacts" was growing more extensive, and two critical biblical beliefs brought me into inescapable conflict with science. The first of the critical conflicts was the biblical belief that death was a consequence of disobedience and not a necessary component of biological life. The second was the biblical belief in miracles, as they required a suspension of the laws of physics. A related problem was how can an immaterial God effect change in a material world. I bring up these points not to start a debate but to share my journey with you. I am not anti-religious; it just does not work for me anymore.

Naturalism

The philosophical position I am most comfortable identifying with today is Naturalism. Naturalism is a way of looking at the world that favors verifiable knowledge. Essentially, it is a scientific worldview. Naturalism claims that all that exists is the natural, meaning we are not outside nature. We are a part of nature, one immense interconnected system of everything. The term natural is used in contrast to the supernatural, which would mean outside of or beyond the natural. While some Naturalists claim there is no supernatural, I remain open to the possibility.

After leaving religion, I still find within myself a longing for a set of practices and beliefs that can rightly be called spiritual yet not supernaturally based. A spirituality that is compatible with what we know from science. A secular spirituality, if you will.

Secular comes from a Latin word for "the present world" and is commonly defined as "worldly." This may sound like the opposite of spirituality, but consider that "spirit" comes from an Indo-European root word meaning "to breathe," which serves as a symbol or metaphor encompassing all that pertains to or animates life. So, secular spirituality is a way to address the most profound questions about life and well-being from the perspective of this present world, in other words, a spirituality without appeal to the supernatural. Within secular spirituality, the "sacred" can be understood as an attitude or approach to the world with reverence and awe based on the awareness of our interconnectedness, which generates a desire to understand and support life.

I refer to this Secular Spirituality or Spiritual Naturalism as: The Way of Kinship. In The Way of Kinship, there is no sacred book other than nature. Traditional religious writings are sometimes called "Wisdom Traditions." Wisdom in The Way of Kinship is that body of knowledge that helps us to live in harmony with reality.

I do not view my philosophy of Naturalism as above religious views. It is the evolution of my intellectual journey, and I know I could be wrong. I only need to look back over my life to see where I have been convinced to change beliefs that I once held deeply, and I am sure it will happen many more times before I die. I respect religious views to the extent that they are not coerced. Good ideas and views of the world, whether religious or philosophical, should come with their own justification, and one should adopt the perspective only if it resonates with them. I draw my line of acceptance when one is threatened with reprisal if one fails to adopt a perspective.

A Naturalist's Interpretation of Classical Daoism

I was first exposed to Daoism (also spelled Taoism) in the early 80's while still in high school. I found it intriguing and challenging to decipher. It would be over twenty years before I was equipped to take up the challenge of reading the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching).

Much like biblical studies, I discovered a broad difference in interpretations of the Daodejing. A common distinction is made between the classical period when the Daodejing was written, in which it is viewed as a non-religious political and philosophical writing, and the later religious perspective that developed over several hundred years and is still common today. There is a movement in academic circles to challenge this distinction, claiming that the Daodejing was religious since its inception. I find the later religious Daoist writings radically different from what is written in the Daodejing. So, I continue to approach the Daodejing as a political and philosophical text within its historical context.

The more I learned about the Daodejing, the more I was amazed. The core of its teaching appeared to be naturalistic, and its cosmology was strikingly similar to modern physics. But the trick with the Daodejing is that the writing is minimalistic and expects the reader to have the context to correctly make sense of the text. This expectation of the text makes it too easy to interpret the Daodejing to say almost anything. If one's goal is to understand what the original author intended to say, then history, culture, and language become the guardrails of meaning.

Taking the time to read, study, and reflect on volumes of Chinese history, culture, and language has been daunting but well worth it. While I can't be said to be an expert in these topics, I have gained enough understanding that those sources primarily inform my reading of the Daodejing. What once was a mysterious collection of sayings that seemed contradictory has now emerged into a logically coherent whole that I find powerfully moving. These are the findings that I wish to share with you in this ongoing series of articles.

This is not to say I am free from bias or agenda. There is no escaping the common human predicament of having a unique viewpoint. Still, we can become aware of our biases and be upfront with our readers. As a Naturalist, I am predisposed to see a natural versus supernatural world. I am approaching the Daodejing from a non-religious perspective. I find this supported through my research and not just a personal desire. Still, there are other perspectives by well-respected scholars.

Going Forward

I hope you will find this interpretation of the Daodejing I will be sharing as rewarding as I have. Please share your feedback. I learn the best through dialog and engagement with other ideas.