Don't Mock the Prayers

There was a statement made in class this week that went something like: the idea of prayer as a fantasy is held by cynics who consider any belief a weakness or at best, a cheap tranquilizer for anxiety.  This struck me as I was accosted by a similar statement years ago by someone close to me I will call Harry.  I was a blossoming “spiritual seeker” and rather enchanted by the whole idea of God guiding my life and helping with the tough issues I might encounter along the way.  Suddenly I felt weak and ineffectual as I considered the implications of what Harry said. Maybe he was right. 

Growing up Catholic I have never been without God, praying at bedtime and going to church were just part of life.  But it was just like a sort wallpaper of my life.  There was the ritual but not much real consciousness in application.  Oh, it was deeply imbedded, I was scared to pieces I was going to hell if I let out a profanity but that belief actually weakened me by teaching me a fearful position in life.

The issue was that I realized that I had to take a stand not with Harry so much as with myself to commit or not to this thing called God.   Was I weak?  Was God and prayer panaceas for the wretched, ignorant people of the earth?  Or better (or worse) yet, did what passed for education of mainline Christians make us weaker by teaching about this being outside of ourselves who had all the power and living a life in subservience to this power and therefore to any other perceived authority outside ourselves? 

When I heard Harry’s words I automatically defaulted to “hmm, he’s older and more educated (read God-like) than I am so he must have an insight about this prayer thing I don’t have.”  I didn’t fall back on my faith, it wasn’t that strong.  I’ve been trying to figure this out ever since.  When I came upon new thought it opened a door for me.  Yes, I did get involved because I thought I could get the money I needed and the stuff I wanted by learning the right prayer process.  But I have a more insight now.  That stuff sucks you in but as I began to truly practice Spiritual principles my perspective about God changed. As I have sunk into a deeper understanding of who I am as a unique expression of God it has empowered me.  I realize that I am not weak for having my beliefs but am stronger simply by practicing this thing called prayer.  Can I explain this to Harry? Nope, he’s got to do it for himself.  Standing on the outside looking in just doesn’t work.  Can I, after 9 weeks of Metaphysical Theology, tell you what God is or isn’t?  Maybe a little.  What I have learned is that God is an experience and until one has experienced IT they should not mock the prayers.

How Do We Do This?

 

I loved this week in class.  Chapter 14 was a discussion of how God works in the world, or rather how to talk about how God works in the world, how it really happens is still up for discussion.  Chapter 15 was an introduction to theological ethics and that quagmire, following on the heels of how God works in the world was, for me, a fabulous juxtaposition of concepts.

 

Theological ethics or Christian social ethics is tied in deeply with how we believe God works in the world on a very concrete, practical level.   The crux of the difficulty with theological ethics is that there are so very many theologies out there and when it comes to answering individual moral questions each person involved holds a stance that may or may not result in a consensus regarding the issue.  Another component of this is the nature of our world today. 

 

Take the issue of end of life decisions.  Not so very long ago most people just died usually at home in their beds with their family around them and it was accepted as part of life, in some small parts of the world it is still that way.  There’s no discussion of shutting off the ventilator or discontinuing a feeding tube.  There aren’t any.  The body either lives or dies.  The medicine man may be called in, but that’s about all the options available.  If the patient dies, there’s no one to sue, no reputation of the mega medical complex to consider, no discussion of the cost of keeping this person alive, no media to contend with, no possibility of laying the blame onto a product or instrument malfunction, no concern about precedent and slippery slopes. 

 

The issues listed above should not affect end of life issues, but they do, every day.  It would be wonderful to be able consider “simply” the theological issues that concern a given ethical situation but life today just isn’t that easy.  I truly believe that our technological life far outweighs our human ability to intelligently and ethically deal with it.  But deal we must. So what to do?

 

It comes to me (and perhaps this has been said in class) that our deepest understandings of God have not kept pace with man’s ability to express the ideas that we as metaphysicians believe are inspired by God.  In other words, we’re good at expressing (producing “stuff”), building on older ideas and concepts, but it seems that we have left behind the very idea of the allness of God in our lives. (Of course that’s only one theology.) Sure, the great theological scholars have brought forth ideas in an effort to concretize God.  But that is the problem.  Culturally, we have frozen the concept of God in time while we have built an amazing world on all of the theories and understandings of other great minds that weren’t dealing with the issue of God directly, (Although we all know Einstein and many others had their theories about God.) We cling desperately to the past regarding the very thing that has brought us to this very modern moment.  I guess I’m a process theologist. 

 

Chapter 14 has a lovely discussion of Grace, most religions have a concept of that in some form and I think in the process of trying to do the “right” or “correct” thing as humans we forget about that.  Praying won’t always “fix” the problem but a trust in our innate connection to a higher power and a willingness to consciously tap into that when the going gets tough may provide us with insights that could facilitate more compassionate, intelligent answers to some of life’s most difficult questions.  And yes, as Christians and participants in the community of mankind we should get involved AND we need to update our God.  (Thank-you Pope Francis)

Of Churches and Labradoodles

 

 

The question, ‘Is Unity part of the church?’ presupposes that it might not be.  This made me think twice as I heard it.  On the surface, the answer to this question seems ridiculous.  Of course it’s a part of…wait, THE church?  What is THE church?  Do you mean church with a small c or a capital C?  Do you mean the historic church or the evolving church as we see it today?  It’s complicated to say the least. 

In his work Handbook of Theological Terms, Van A. Harvey says that the word church “is used to translate the word Greed word Ekklesia, employed in the New Testament to designate the community of those who have accepted the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, participated in the symbolic rite of death and resurrection (Baptism), received the gift of the Holy Spirit (the new life), and gathered together for common worship and an the celebration of the Eucharist.”  Well, it seems that taken on the surface Unity certainly doesn’t fill that criteria very well. But let’s take this apart.

From the beginning Unity has accepted the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, albeit from a metaphysical perspective.  To this day members of Unity look to the teachings of Jesus as the basis for how to live in the world.  It is, however, important to note that even the Fillmores, especially Charles, drew from more than just the Biblical teachings and we do not exclude teachings from other religions as heretical but rather seek to see the commonality in all of them.

The next point is a little trickier.  Does Unity participate in the symbolic rite of death and resurrection which Harvey calls Baptism?  Not so sure.  Unity does not practice Baptismal Rites as a prerequisite to full membership, but again, there is a metaphysical perspective on this.  Unity teaches that baptism is the dying to the belief of error thought and being reborn into our fullest expression of Christ Consciousness.  This is not something that happens in one sitting (or dunking), but is a continuous process of small perhaps even daily, baptisms of releasing of error thought which then results in a new life.

Finally, does Unity gather together to celebrate the Eucharist?  The word “Eucharist” is derived from the Greek meaning, “to give thanks”, (per Harvey).  Again, Unity doesn’t practice the Sacrament of the Eucharist like the Catholic church does but going back to the Greek meaning, gratitude as meaning giving thanks, is one of the underpinnings of the entire Unity Movement.  Unity prayer includes gratitude, the services usually include an element of gratitude, and Unity does practice communion as a community in Christ consciousness.

So, is Unity part of the Church?  It seems that Unity may be closer to what the original church (small c intended) started out as.  Which was a group of people who recognized the power of the teachings of one man (mostly) who understood the power that the implementation of those teachings could have on a person’s life and who recognized the power of gratitude as an opening to a more expansive, fulfilling experience of life.  Then there was an evolution of those concepts through the orientation toward the worship of the man (after all, the whole resurrection story is pretty cool), instead of the ideas he taught, the need for organization and man’s seeming inherent need for power.  Is this what will happen to Unity as it grows?   

Yes, I believe Unity is part of the church, in the same way that labradoodles are part of the species of animal known as dog.  They don’t shed, they’re hypo allergenic and are great with kids something a lot of people need.  They serve man well, now.   That doesn’t make them not dogs (although some people will argue that point.)  As a church, Unity is a hybrid with new (hmmm, maybe old) characteristics.   Its characteristics serve many people very well, right here right now.  There will always be the purebreds with a stately pedigree, but often it’s what works for the present time that truly serves man.

Omega What?

 

There was an intriguing discussion this week regarding Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s theory of the Omega Point. Per Dr. Thomas Shepherd, Teilhard believed “humanity was progressing along a predetermined track from Creation to the Omega Point, which he identified with the Christ.”  While neither the scope of this blog, nor my understanding of Teilhard is large enough to discuss this fully, it will be fun to toss around a few ideas. 

Personally, I really liked the idea but after some serious mind work I understood that at this time, our understanding of evolution is such that it just doesn’t fit.  While again, my understanding of the origins of the earth, and the life on it are quite basic it might be interesting to ask if mankind’s view, understanding and even technology are simply not big enough to encompass such an idea.

A few years ago I saw a video on the human Genome project in which a scientist actually said that the parts of the gene that scientists were unable to fit into the system of coding that was being done at the time was and I quote “junk”, filler so to speak.  Flash forward a few years and suddenly they’re discovering that this “junk” is actually serving a vital purpose as part of the genome.  We don’t know what we don’t know.

Pierre Teilhard was a Jesuit priest educated in the sciences, philosophy, and Christianity in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.  He is known as one of the first minds to combine science and spirituality.  His ideas were not well accepted by the scientific community or the Catholic Church, but apparently evoked enough thought and controversy to still be discussed.  In the June 1995 on line issue of Wired, Jennifer Cobb Kreisberg wrote of Teilhard and Vladimir Vernadsky as being the minds that inspired the Gaia hypothesis. While the teleological elements have been essentially eliminated the basic concept of the entire earth as an organism affected by that which lives in it has become the basis for our current environmental worldview.  There was something in the thinking of these two great minds that inspired further discussion, investigation and a different way of looking at the world, and yet Teilhard’s teleological concept is not accepted.

It is interesting to note while the Omega point theory has been pretty much debunked by close examination of the study of evolution and the Omega theory, perhaps part of the appeal of the theory was that it gave man’s existence a purpose and hope, perhaps not here and now but in the future of mankind there will be the expression of full Christedness.  Is there not always a group of intelligent human beings seeking explanations for our experience of life?  First the weather was punishing us, then the weather Gods, then the God of weather, then the God of Gods, as we learn more the more sophisticated our Higher Being becomes.  This seems to be a form of evolution. (Changes in increments)

We all have a “seed” of the divine waiting to spring forth and in our individual lives many of us do evolve, albeit not always for the highest and best.  Sometimes the environment prevents the full blooming of this seed.  Yes, a rock will always be a rock but the rock has no will power and the predetermined track thing knocks out will on a lot of levels.  Mankind does have the ability to self-analyze and shift as seen in our environmental consciousness and even more importantly our world consciousness.  Perhaps it’s not a predetermined track as we understand it. 

Man will always be man but if what we teach is true we are seeking to express our divinity.  If we subscribe to the theory that we are One it could be reasonable to expect that at some time in the far away future we could express this Oneness in the physical world, with every”one” else.

 

 

How Did THAT Happen?

When I think of myth I think of Greek Gods, symbols of big concepts and ideas, we know these people never existed but the story of the myth addresses a basic character/idea of mankind.  In the mythologizing of a mortal, that person actually existed but the myth forms around them. This is a different process.

In a simplistic way, demythologizing Jesus is like demythologizing Santa Claus, there is some basis in truth and the rest has been filled in over time by religious, societal, and cultural expediency.  It’s interesting how the stories of certain historical figures seem to become magnets for mythologizing.  Why St. Nicholas?  Why Jesus? 

There is a kernel of truth in any mythology, it’s what makes it myth and not just story telling.  In a brief foray into the history of Santa Claus, it seems that the Santa Claus myth was based on the unusual generosity of a man who had dedicated himself to following the tenants of the church regarding the sharing of one’s wealth.  Throw in some miracles and we’re on our way to myth.  The Santa Claus Myth grew and shifted with the culture as a symbol of generosity.  Why was it adopted?  Because it was the example of a “good” way to be in the world, perhaps a reflection of man’s spark of divinity embodied in a human being.

In the case of Jesus, we have a man who dared to speak up against the hypocrisy of the orthodoxy, who taught agape love.  (Never mind the miracles.)  From there developed the story of a man who would save the world.  What could be more powerful than the idea of a world in which all were treated equally with love and respect? (Especially among those who weren’t.)  Is it the man who would save the world or the IDEA of the manifestation of universal love within each one of us?

I believe the power in demythologizing an historical figure to a “mere mortal” is that we can identify with that person, if they can do it (embody a powerful idea), perhaps we can aspire to that same ideal.  It also forces us to examine what was more about this person that made the myth.  Perhaps that’s WHY they become mythologized, because they personified the ideal or do we believe it is out of our reach and therefore man makes it myth?  It’s rather like the formation of celebrity in our time.  Many aspire to be one but the fact is it’s hard to get there and therefore there’s a mystique around the whole thing and yes, Jesus was more than a celebrity.

In the Webster- Merriam dictionary the definition of demythologization is “to divest of mythical elements or associations.”   It seems that in demythologizing Jesus we get down to the argument regarding the worship of Jesus the man versus the application of his teachings called Christianity.  Or is that Christianity?  Hmmm food for more blogging.

Within or Without?

Whew, what an argument, are we the slime of the earth here to be manipulated at the whim of a capricious power or are we inherently as divine as the One because we are the One?  Do we have to trust and pray (with just the right words, of course) that “thy will is my will” or are we inherently able to know and stand in the Truth and be creators of our own universe? 

This has been an issue for thousands of years and will not be solved within the confines of 500 words but it is interesting to ponder.  Let’s consider the medical model for a moment.  There has been huge advances in the care and healing of our bodies over the last even 100 years, this based on intellectual study and the acceptance and evolution of new ideas.  We are coming to a point in time where it’s becoming accepted that medicine isn’t just something that’s done TO a body.  We are beginning to understand that to truly heal requires not only physical intervention (from the outside) but requires appropriate mental and spiritual components on the part of the patient as well (from the inside).  My point is that if someone given a dire diagnosis believes they are going to die, it is more likely that they will as opposed to someone who chooses not so much to be in denial as to acknowledge the medical evidence and then proceed to choose a more optimistic outlook.  It’s not just about the medicine.

 

Perhaps we need to consider the possibility that our concept of God is evolving also.  Man’s more sophisticated life requires a more sophisticated view of God.  We have already acknowledged in class that very few pray to a man with a beard in the sky yet we still want to have the discussion of whether God’s in here or out there.

 

Thought is what makes medicine, a new concept comes forth as an idea and may eventually manifest as a new treatment or medication.  Where does this thought come from? Is it released from God and placed into a scientist’s brain or did it originate from some divine process deep within the scientist’s psyche?  If God is omnipresent and the substance of all there is no way to differentiate in from out from a higher plane.  Can we just accept that the same way we now accept the fact that we can lie down in a big metal box that sees inside of us and receive a diagnosis?  I’m thinking there are many people who trust the box far more than the divinity that we are.

Exciting and Dangerous

OK, it’s week 3 of Metaphysical Theology and I think I’m starting to get the big picture or at least part of it.  I’m finding that there is a whole system of study here that empowers the intelligent discussion of all things religious, however one interprets THAT.  As one part of theology, I have always thought biblical interpretation was something that only someone with years of learning was able to do. When I took my first class in metaphysical interpretation I felt as if someone had given me a golden key.  With a little work, I could apply these wordy stories to my experiences and have another tool for understanding the strange mysteries of life. There was a way to make sense of this book called the Bible that could make it relevant to me.  Now I have even more tools with which to critically discern what the bible is saying…to me, as an individual.

Here’s where it gets tricky.  One of the discussion questions in Glimpses asks why metaphysical interpretation is both exciting and dangerous.  (Is danger not exciting?)  As an individual doing interpretation for myself how I do it and what conclusions I come to is exciting. And it’s my own business and if it’s a bit misguided or ill-informed it doesn’t really matter because I know God isn’t “up there” grading me and I’m not influencing others.  Unless, of course, I happen to be a self-proclaimed mystic or prophet.  Yes, some might consider being a self-proclaimed prophet to be exciting, but, as an individual, I believe we need to be aware that we can wander far afield. Without a willingness to acknowledge this and continuing to refine my interpretation techniques, instead of the “word of God” cracking me open I may just wind up being labeled cracked up or even cracking up, either of which would be dangerous.

 As ministers, however, we are responsible for the education and, may I say, enlightenment of an entire community and as such it is our responsibility to be informed to the best of our ability and that’s exciting. To help people understand the story behind the story and see the light bulb go off is exciting. Now, I admit to a little uninformed interpretation myself but when sharing, I always admit that this is the world according to Keri.  What’s dangerous and possibly exciting and scary is that there are times when I may be speaking to an audience who knows more than I do or who believes differently than I do.  The earlier I am in my ministry the more likely I am to come across the former.  The more experience I develop as a minister the more likely it is that I will put myself in the position to be in front of the latter, although even my own congregation will have their opinions.  Yep, it will be dangerous and exciting.