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.

Seeing All the Angles (or at least some of them)

 

How might I use the Unity Quadrilateral in my ministry?  Let me count the ways.  I see the Unity QuadrilateraI as a theological tool that can be used in different ways at many levels.   I see it as an instrument for providing assessment, balance, and inspiration for my ministry in addition to being a tool for the assessment of beliefs. 

 As I work through my studies I can see that assessing different theological questions that arise through the components of the Unity Quadilateral; Scripture, Experience, Reflection and Tradition, can help cast light into the darker corners of understanding.   As a Minister I see that as I research topics for study for talks these “fantastic four” (Dr. Tom coined this phrase) will provide a framework for both inquiry and the service itself.  I can pick a topic and use any one of the lenses to put a certain slant on the talk or include all of them when speaking of a common theme to give it some new light.  In putting together the entire service, I can include all four components in varying percentages based on the needs and desires of my congregation.  I see the “Quad” as a tool for providing assessment, balance, and inspiration for my ministry in addition to being a tool for the assessment of beliefs. 

As discussed in class, people come to church for different reasons and this tool is perfect for assessing a congregation formally or informally in terms of where they are coming from.  Might my congregation be seeking more discussion of scripture or are they seeking ways to apply the teachings to their lives?  Do they want to be challenged to think about their faith or would they prefer to be mollified by the traditions of ritual?  (Now you know what my leanings are.)  I realize that there will probably be some of each kind of lens, but to be aware of their leanings will help me to better tailor my work to their needs, beliefs and desires.  Additionally, it gives me an understanding of where I may need to lead the congregation (gently) to a better balance of understanding if necessary. 

I also see this quadrilateral as a tool for assessment of my congregation from the perspective “their church”.  What is the tradition of this particular church?  What are its traditions?  What has been its recent and past experiences that would color their experience of a new minister?  Has there been reflection about what their church is or are they bound by tradition?  What are their scriptural preferences, understandings and biases?

This tool can be used in many ways to facilitate deeper understanding of all aspects of ministry and I’m quite sure that it will be a cornerstone of my practice as a minister.