The Journey Continues………
Ξ October 29th, 2008 | → 9 Comments | ∇ Life |
It appears that I am being led to a Christianity that is not one of mere belief, but one of experience and relationship to our Source through the life of Jesus.
Don R.
Postmodernity
Ξ October 29th, 2008 | → 4 Comments | ∇ Life |
"We live on the boundary of postmodernity. We are not simply modern people; in addition, we are living in the borderland of a new period of cultural history. The central and defining features of that new period have not yet become clear, so we do not know what to call it yet. Hence, we simply call it ‘POSTMODERNITY’: it is what comes next."
Marcus J. Borg, "Reading the Bible Again, for the First Time"
Exclusivism
Ξ October 26th, 2008 | → 7 Comments | ∇ Life |
"Many of us find the exclusivistic claims of the Christian tradition impossible to accept. This is so for both commonsense and Christian theological reasons. Does it make sense that the creator of the whole universe would be known in only one religious tradition, which (fortunately) just happens to be our own?
Moreover, such a claim is difficult to reconcile with the centrality of grace in the Christian tradition. If one must be a Christian in order to be in right relationship with God, then there is a requirement. By definition, then, even though we may use the language of grace, we are no longer talking about grace." (emphasis mine)
Marcus J. Borg, "Reading the Bible Again, for the First Time"
We Are a Localized Expression of God, Our Source- An Explanation
Ξ October 25th, 2008 | → 3 Comments | ∇ Life |
When I say that "We are all one, made of the same stuff as God. God and us are the same". There is often a misinterpretation of what that means. Typically, and recently, someone said to me, "So you believe you are God". How arrogant that must sound to their hearing. But, they simply misunderstand. I have tried for some time to write an explanation of what it is that I mean. I have yet to sufficiently do that. However, God leads us to the answer. Neale Donald Walsch recently wrote an email which very clearly and succenctly explains this idea. What follows is the email I received from Neale:
We Are All One. We are, in other words, One with each other, One with Life, and One with God.
This means, in a sense, that we are God.
Well, not "in a sense." I don’t want to equivocate on that. It means we are God no matter how you look at it. Yet there is a way to step into that, there is a way to embrace that and to live that, which can make it much more functional in your life.
I am clear that the message "you are Divine," or "you are God," is absolute truth. I am also clear that you and I are individuations of the Divine – and that statement has important implications.
There is only One Thing, and all things are part of the One Thing That Is. I call this One Thing "God." To me, God is The Singularity. That is, there is Only One Of It, and everything that "is" is "It". Yet there is a distinction between The Singularity and The Singularization of that Singularity.
I believe that The Singularity (God) singularized Itself into a million-billion-kajillion parts that I call "Singularizations." I believe each such Singularization is made of the "same stuff" as the Whole – but in differing degrees, thus allowing differing expressions.
I believe The Singularity to be an Essence – what I might call the Primal Essence. If I had to characterize this Essence in human terms I would call it Pure Intelligence. I believe this Essence to produce an Energy – what I might call Basic Energy (or ‘The Force’).
I believe that the Singularizations of The Singular are imbued with varying degrees of this Primal Essence, and thus can produce varying degrees of Basic Energy. Looking at it in reverse, I believe that it is the Sum Total of All Of This Essence that forms what I will call the Allness: All Awareness, All Wisdom, All Understanding, All Knowing, All Experiencing, and All Being.
I believe that no particular Singularization comprises, or by definition can comprise, the Sum Total of The Singularity. Nevertheless, I believe that a Singularization may, in fact, be able to give the Allness-All Awareness, All Wisdom, All Understanding, All Knowing, All Experiencing, and All Being-a Singularized (or Localized) Expression, proportionate to its size in relation to The Whole.
In perhaps more human terms, I believe that an individual can demonstrate Godliness at the highest level with which any sentient being may do so-but that no sentient being is capable of individually duplicating, in power, impact, scope or reach, the Total Expression of The Singularity.
Local Expression is not the same as Universal Expression.
Or, to put all this simply, no human being can express the totality of God.
Let me be clear on what all this means-and let me tell you why I am even bringing it all up.
It is my knowing that a human being can act as one would expect God to act, in any localized way. This would allow the miracles of Jesus, the wisdom of Buddha, the insights of Muhammad, the power of Moses to part the sea. But I am told that the proportion of Primal Essence available to each Expression of that Essence is determined by its container.
A butterfly contains more than a rock. A dog contains more than a butterfly. A dolphin contains more than a dog. A man contains more than a dolphin (presumably). And so forth.
Further, it is clear that all beings of a particular species (or expression of physicality) are capable of reaching the same level; are capable of "containing" the same degree or amount of Primary Essence…or Pure Intelligence. Each physicalization of the species is capable of reaching the highest level of which that species itself is capable.
And so, all humans are capable of becoming a Christ or a Buddha-which both Buddha and Christ declared. Repeatedly. ("Why are you so amazed? These things, and more, shall you do also."-JESUS)
I am bringing this up here because there is a potentially misleading (if not dangerous) aspect to the teaching that "you are God." If you do not distinguish between the Localized Expression of God and the Universal Expression of God, you may take that teaching to mean that, being God, you, as a drop, have all the power of the ocean itself.
That would be a mistake.
Relationship with God, Our Source
Ξ October 23rd, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
As I continue this journey building a new relationship with my Source, I have thought more than once: Can I still be called a Christian? Are my beliefs and ideas in any way related to the Christian experience? Would the people with whom I, at one time, attended church consider me a Christian?
I think these are legitimate questions. The farther down this road I travel, the more distant I become from my traditional Christian roots. Is this a bad thing? I must admit that I don’t want to divest myself of all that is Christian. There is just too much that I value. At the same time, there seems to be less and less in traditional Christianity that I assent to.
Recently, I have longed for a way that I can mitigate the difference between what I now believe concerning Christianity and what I spent most of my life believing. I don’t believe my former denomination would let me return to it if they knew what I hold close today (although I have no desire to do so). So where does an old former Southern Baptist go when he’s not anything close to a Southern Baptist anymore? Heck, I’m not even close to any mainline Christian theology!
It is yet to be fully confirmed, but I have found a possible respite. And it doesn’t involve me changing anything. IT is the ideas, and thoughts of Dr. Marcus Borg. I believe Borg to be a genuine Christian. I find myself agreeing with him on most things of his which I have read. He has excellent credentials as a scholar and has devoted his life to the search for the real Jesus. He is not without controversy attached to his name. He is a prominent member of the Jesus Seminar, an organization which I, in my "fundy" days, was certain was "led by the devil". As I began this journey, strangely enough, one of the first places I was led was to the Jesus Seminar’s monumental work, The Five Gospels. I saw Dr. Borg’s name listed as a member of the group, but never investigated his credentials. It wasn’t until recently that I started to notice his name appearing everywhere. I began searching for articles about him. Everything I found about him, I liked. I read articles, book reviews, listened to interviews, etc; All of those things led me to believe I had found something special in this man’s ideas. Something that I could assent to. I have begun reading his books this week. I am currently reading Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. Everything I’ve read so far is very enlightening AND leads me to believe that I have found a place within Christianity that I can feel comfortable. Dr. Borg’s main thesis in his works (so far) concerns building a relationship with our Source, a spiritual relationship. It isn’t about doctrine, dogma, beliefs, inerrancy, divinity, or any of those typical "Christian" ideas. It is about relationship…you and God. That’s something I can really identify with. Check out my What I Am Currently Reading area of this blog . More on Dr. Borg’s books later……
Salvation at Thirteen
Ξ October 20th, 2008 | → 7 Comments | ∇ Life |
*The following is one the first posts I made on my old blog back in August of 2006. I thought it was time to repeat it for all my new readers.
There he sat, a hot, sweaty, thirteen year old kid. It was a hot, stiflingly hot, summer afternoon in Texas. The parents, good, God-fearing people, were really worried about their only son. He hadn’t made a "decision for Christ", and he was way beyond the "age of accountability". What if something happened to him, God forbid. He was destined for a Devil’s Hell. They had to do something about it, even if he wouldn’t. To top it all off, his best friend had made his "decision" that morning. Wouldn’t it be great if they were baptized together. Well, if he wouldn’t do something about that, they would. They called the pastor and asked him to come over and speak to their son.
That thirteen year old kid was me. Making a "decision for Christ" was the farthest thing from my mind as I was playing outside with the neighborhood kids on that hot, Texas Sunday afternoon. I remember my Mom calling me inside. I remember wondering whose car that was in the driveway. Then it hit me. It was the preacher’s! Holy cow, I mean spirit-filled bovine, what had I done? I had no clue. I then remembered that my friend had "gone down front" that morning and I thought that must be it. As I walked, sweating like a pig, into the house, there he was, the preacher. The man scared me to death. He was a stern-faced individual who rarely smiled. His booming voice during services had certainly put the "fear of God" in me, just not quite enough to get me to "make my decision". So now he was here to beat it, no, no coax it out of me. First, an aside, you gotta understand that our house had one air conditioner and it was in my parent’s bedroom/ TV room. So on this near 100 degree day, where did all of us go to discuss this very, very, weighty subject, the living room. The unairconditioned living room. I mean, that’s the only place to visit with the pastor, right?
There we were, my parents and the preacher sitting on the couch and me, sitting across from them, in the hot seat, so to speak.
I am only quoting from a distant memory now, but I believe the preacher said something like this, "Donnie, you know Bill (not his real name) made his "decision for Christ" this morning and will be baptized tonight. Don’t you want to do the same, so ya’ll can be baptized together?" There was a long pause………What was I supposed to say? No thanks, don’t think so, I got things to do outside. Can I go now? The sweat began to roll down my forehead onto my nose as the steely-faced preacher waited for my answer. I finally said, "OK". Everyone smiled, including, unexplicably, the preacher. Whew, glad that’s over. So, I "went down front" that night at church and was "saved". Oh, and I was baptized that same night right behind my friend.
So what’s wrong with that picture? You know, I remember making fun as a kid of all the ritual stuff that the Catholic kids in my town had to do at church. Up and down, up and down, repeat this prayer, say that phrase, go to communion, go to confession. How silly I thought that was. I made fun of THEIR ritual. I can remember thinking all those other churches are wrong and WE have it right. Was what happened to me on that hot Texas summer day RIGHT? Did all the others have it WRONG? Was I then as a thirteen year old kid assured of "going to heaven" because the preacher put me in the (literal) hot seat and got me to "give it up"?
I don’t blame my parents. They were wonderful, loving parents. I always felt safe and loved. It WAS and IS the system which tells us God loves you more than you can imagine, IF YOU LOVE HIM BACK (ENOUGH)……………………………….
How You Experience Things Is Up To You
Ξ October 16th, 2008 | → 3 Comments | ∇ Life |
On this day of your life, dear friend, I believe God wants you to know…
…that it may seem that you cannot control exterior circumstances,
but you can always control interior ones.
Your internal world — the reality that you encounter within your mind and emotions —
is a world that you and only you control and create.
How you experience everything is up to you.
Your reactions need not be automatic or similar to ones you have had before.
*Neale Donald Walsh
A Second Image of God
Ξ October 13th, 2008 | → 4 Comments | ∇ Life |
*I am continuing the subject of "The Character of God" which I began in the last post. These ideas are not mine, but come from a brilliant, modern theologian, Dr. Marcus Borg.
In the last post, I presented Dr. Borg’s thoughts on the character of God, the "Monarchial Model". This post will be concerned with the "Divine Lover" model. This model can be found in the Biblical tradition as well as the post-biblical Christian tradition. The image of God as lover is very interesting when you think about it; and it’s deeply rooted in the Biblical tradition. It occurs frequently in the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. To cite just one example from the prophets, from Isaiah 43, that wonderful chapter of gospel in the Hebrew Bible, God is portrayed as saying to Israel, "You are precious in my eyes and honored and I love you. Do not be afraid." The image of God as lover is the central image in the Song of Solomon, that collection of erotic love poetry also known as the Song of Songs. The Song of Songs is understood by Jews and Christians alike through the centuries as an allegory of divine love. It is striking that the Song of Songs was the single most popular biblical book among Christians of the Middle Ages. More manuscript copies of that book survived than of any other book in the Bible.
The image of God as lover is also widespread in the New Testament. It is found in the best known verse, John 3:16, which as you all know begins, "For God so loved the world …," and Jesus is seen as the embodiment, the incarnation of the love of God, of God as lover. To image God as lover changes the dynamic of the Christian life dramatically. God is "in love" with us. We are precious in God’s eyes and honored. We are the beloved of God. That’s who we are in relationship to God as lover. God yearns for us. For just a moment think of the difference in your life if you knew that at the deepest level of your being that God is in love with you, that God yearns for you, yearns that you turn and be in relationship with God as the beloved of God.
It’s very different from the monarchical model. The monarchical model puts us on guard. There are requirements to be met, rewards and punishments to be considered. We are defendants on trial. But the Divine Lover model changes the way we see the character of God. Rather than God being the one we need to please, whether through good deeds or earnest repentance and faith, God as lover is passionate about us, yearns to be in relationship with us. Yet there is a danger to the Divine Lover model. The danger is that it can become too individualistic, too sweet, as it were, as if it meant primarily that God loves me. We need to guard against sentimentalizing and individualizing this image, for the image of God as lover means that God loves everybody, not just me and not just us, but everybody.
As lover, God is compassionate. This is God’s character. Compassion, as many of you know, is an unusually rich metaphor in the Bible. It’s related to the word for womb. To say that God is compassionate is to say that God is like a womb or womb-like, life-giving, nourishing. Compassion in the Bible also has resonances associated with the feelings that a mother has for the children of her womb. What are the feelings that a mother has for the children of her womb? Tenderness, of course. Willing their well-being, hope, concern.
And feelings from the womb aren’t simply soft. They can become fierce, as when the children of a mother’s womb are threatened or treated dreadfully. Just as a mother feels compassion for her children and wills their well-being and can become fierce in the defense of her children, so God feels compassion for Her children and wills their well-being and can become fierce in the defense of Her children—all of Her children.
As lover, God is not only compassionate but also passionate about social justice. God as lover is passionate about social justice with a simple reason that its opposite, systemic injustice is the single greatest source of unnecessary human social misery, of unnecessary human suffering in history. Social justice is the way our well-being is attained in this world. Indeed, God as lover is "in love" not only with us as human beings but even with the non-human world, with the whole of creation. Thus both a passion for justice and a passion for the environment flow out of imaging God as lover.
Depending upon which of these ways of imaging God’s character is emphasized, the character of God is seen very differently and the Christian life is seen very differently. Is it about meeting requirements so that we might be saved someday, or is it about a relationship in the here and now with God as lover? The ethical imperative that goes with each is quite different. For the monarchical model the ethical imperative is, be good because you will be called to account. There will be a judgment. For the divine lover model the ethical imperative is, love that which God loves. So what is the character of your God?
The Character of God
Ξ October 9th, 2008 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
"One the most common Christian visions of the second coming is as "divine ethnic cleansing." Of course, Christians would never speak of it that way. But think of those visions of the second coming that basically amount to—God is going to get all of those people who are not like us. "
-John Dominic Crossan
This quote expresses one of the common images or metaphors of the character of God. It is called the "monarchial model" of the character of God. The model name comes from theologians Ian Barbour and Sallie McFague. This model comes from the Biblical model of God as King and Lord (Lawgiver and Judge). However, as humans, we don’t measure up to a God who is lawgiver and judge, which this model implies. In this model, we are on trial. In this life we have to get it right or we face the consequences. We face the judge and have to answer why we didn’t get it right; why we didn’t DO what we need to DO. It does not necessarily mean that God doesn’t love us, but it is a conditional love. We have to get it right. And in Christianity it depends on which form you grew up in as to the combination of behavior and belief to get it right. God becomes the divine superego in our heads. This God rages and ranges along a spectrum from you’re no good, to you’re never quite enough. This model is the God of requirements. It is about measuring up, of doing or believing what this God requires of us. This model also leads to the dualistic idea of being either in or out of the right group. There will those who "seem" to measure up to the requirements and those who don’t; the "saved" and the "unsaved or lost". This model also leads to viewing God as a God of vengence; God will "get" those who don’t measure up, who don’t meet the requirements. The "getting" comes in the form of a judgement, either after death with the prospect of heaven or hell, or at the second coming. This God model focuses our attention on our own salvation often to the exclusion of others, forcing us to make sure we have done or believed what is needed.
This is the model that most Christians grew up with and the most common model, metaphor, or image of God in the Christian church today. But, is this the model that resonates with you. There is another model of the character of God, an image, or metaphor to describe the Source. I’ll discuss it in my next post.
*The ideas for this post come from a sermon by Dr. Marcus Borg
In Touch
Ξ October 8th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
"I’m discovering that a significant element of living the Christian life is following my feelings."
"Wideopenspaces", by Jim Palmer
Stumble it!
