Prayer Theology – Can we say "a" word of prayer?

I had a difficult time trying to write a 12-page paper on prayer in Unity.  Once anyone starts to talk about prayer, that discussion inevitably  leads to God, words like consciousness, and Oneness; and as you know, each one of those topics is in and of itself another 12-page paper...or more. It felt daunting. How many people have written about prayer? After the inundation of words swimming through my head, I just wanted to go and well…uh…pray. Words, words, words …what to do with all these words?

So, here are a few more words on prayer.  I think we all have some notion about what prayer is, but here’s a dictionary meaning or two. The American Heritage College Dictionary Fourth Edition defines prayer in the following ways:   “a reverent petition made to God or another object of worship” or “an act of communion with one worshiped, as in devotion or thanksgiving.” It can also mean anything from “the slightest of hope” to “a fervent request.” Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Basic English defines prayer as “words spoken to God, the act of praying to God, a strong hope, or a set form of words used in praying.”

It appears one of the definitions above (an act of communion with one worshiped) is similar to Charles Fillmore’s in Revealing Word, (p. 152), which says prayer is “communion between God and man.” We cannot really separate out from the question of what is prayer from that other looming question, which is what or who then is the God with which you commune? How do you commune with the God of your understanding? It seems that how you understand God has a lot to do with how you pray. Can you really tease the two questions out from each other? The answer to both questions invariably will be all over the place and vary from individual and faith to faith.  How one prays and when one prays will hinge upon one’s beliefs and thoughts about God. And yes, prayer is communal, individual, mystical, spoken, unspoken, long, short…great, we have so many options!

There still continues to be a controversy over let it in vs. let it out…should we pray from within or pray to? Does this innately convey that it HAS to be one or the other?  We will always be stepping on somebody else’s toes I guess. It’s better to just decide to make up my mind that I’m just going to be love and embrace diversity of thought when it come to the manifold ways individual expression of an idea such as prayer is going to show up. I don’t want to embrace something like this so tightly that I can see the other person’s point of view - - even with how they pray or how they meditate.   But realistically I must face the times when I will hit a wall, which I have, with things that don’t feed me. It’s not that I want to act like they don’t, that’s not authentic. So the authentic way is to be more about what I’m for - - and don’t make up a bunch of drama about what I see is not working (for me). I find and do what makes my heart sing. If I like soul food, I go where there’s soul food, or better yet I cook some. I don’t need to force it on anyone else. I do me. I am an individual unique expression of the Divine. My life is a prayer-one constant prayer.  My prayer life, my thanksgiving and praise, and devotion life mean a lot to me. I like having different practices...daily, weekly, quarterly retreats--it varies. And since God is everywhere present, then everywhere I am - I’m communing. It’s a two-way street. Or rather a One inter-meshed, intertwining, overlapping street.

Because there are so many ways to pray and meditation, people must do what works for them and what they are comfortable with. What gives a person a sense of the Infinite? What gives them a sense that they are connecting or communing? For me, it’s realizing that I am connected already. Whatever comes up in life, I’m connected already. And even if science, research, quantum physics tend to support this now…I will still believe I am One with God.

In the early 1900s the medical field was not that advanced like it is today. Prayer was a front contender for healing. I couldn’t help but think of all the faith healers that were going around in the 50s and 60s when I was a small child - - it seems there was a new breed of healing practices springing up all over the place.  Now that we have all different kinds of alternative medicine, meditation practices, and modalities to experience healing, do we really need prayer? Is prayer now a last resort, or a just in case, or a backup? I like what Larry Dossey, MD, says, “Although science tells us that prayer works, it cannot tell us how it works. Science is limited in studying prayer. Therefore, science can never swallow up prayer, as some people fear.” I agree.

 

 

Theological Ethics: Deontology or Teleology?

Which Are You? Are you a deontologist or a teleologist? Basically speaking, what is your default? (AND they are mutually exclusive, meaning you cannot simultaneously be a deontologist and teleologist.)

Deontology – Asks what is the right action?

Teleology – Asks how is the greatest good accomplished?

Hmmm…not being able to be both simultaneously leads me to believe you can perhaps be either one depending on the circumstances and situations that arise. Everyone probably has a default way by which they process most quickly and most automatically. A person may initially go to one way of processing ethically, and then switch to the other. We need both though, individually and collectively. We have governance bodies and think tanks and millions of non-profits globally doing more of the teleological thinking, but that doesn’t exclude individuals from sharpening those skills as well.

Society seems to instill within us deontological programming.  In the schools, in corporations, in churches, there are behaviors that are acceptable and those that are not.  Abrahamic religions pay a lot of attention to “the law,” believing the laws to be the will of God. Also, people may need to conform to the social environment in order to fit in as a contributing law-abiding citizen initially, so that we don’t become a society living in complete anarchy and lawlessness.  But I understand that yes, there are times when someone breaks with their deontological thinking to run a red light to get someone to the hospital in a life-threatening situation.

 And yes, there may even be some survival instincts embedded in our thought processes that might give us deontological tendencies, too.  From an early age, many of us were told to obey the laws of the land (deontological), but what happens in an oppressive racist system where the laws of the land were Jim Crow? Within the Civil Rights movement, I can see where teleological thinking had to kick in. It was time for “unjust” laws to change in order for a good outcome for all in our society could come forth.  As for the millions of law-abiding citizens who looked the other way when injustices were taking place or who favored the laws as they were, I guess they would be classic deontologists. There are times when the awareness of injustices has to be raised in order for teleological initiatives to garner support and mobilize. Any one of us could sit around and not know the adverse impact a law is having on someone until it’s brought to our attention. This is now happening with many issues today- - the awareness of the issue has to be raised in the public’s mind.

There’s seems to be a rise in teleologic thinking taking place now…or visibly so, in terms of social activism and creating a world that works for all.  I think the human race is coming around, and in every religion there’s a shift in consciousness taking place in which many are re-examining their teachings, such as:

What is hateful to you, do not do to others. – Rabbi Hillel

Do not hurt others with that which hurts yourself.  – Buddha

Do unto other whatever you would have them do unto you. – Jesus

None of you is a believer until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself.  – Muhammad[1]

The question is - - how do we do this? How can the human race work for a good outcome using these principles? Here’s a clue according to:

 Andrew Harvey and Chris Saade on their video “Engaged Spirituality, Part 1” (http://www.theolivebranchcenter.net/VideosSecondWave.asp)

Andrew Harvey:  “The second wave is I believe the gift of the Divine Mother to us to help us birth a new embodied divine humanity through sacred activism and the implementation of the central messages of all of the traditions of love and compassion, in action.”

Chris Saade:  “Engage spirituality, engage mysticism, engage faith have become the key words of today’s theological thinking in every tradition.”

This week’s class gave me great insights, new learning, and challenged my thinking…I have a feeling we’ve only begun to scratch the surface, but at least it’s a start as far as beginning to deal with the issues confronting our world and the lives of congregants.  Something’s got to give.  As history has shown us, the rigidity of legalism in any institution, secular or non-secular, can build walls that become so brittle they crack and fall…like the Berlin Wall.  Maybe more walls need to fall. We live in such a complex world now-- I know I will spend the rest of my life going back and forth between a  deontologist and teleologist. I am not so presumptuous to think I can debate out all the tough issues today or solve world hunger at this particular moment, but now I have some additional tools to weigh these issues out in my own mind and heart with love and compassion and be divinely directed to act.

---

[1] Sharif Abdullah, Creating a World that Works for All (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1999), p.13

 

Is Unity Part of the Church?

This question begs another question, and that is, what is meant by the church?   

This week we discussed three words for church. Glimpses in Truth by Dr. Tom Shepherd states, “New Testament authors chose two words to describe their community of faith:  ekklesia…and koinonia.”  Glimpses goes on to say: 1.)  ekklesia  is a root word meaning clergyperson, or assembly, or gathering of those called to serve, and 2.) koinonia is a term that describes the fellowship of Christians, used in NT to refer to a “peculiar kind of communion Christians have with God and with one another in Christ.” Koinonia also referred “to the kind of community that should characterize the churches, suggesting what the fellowship of believers ought to be” e.g., exemplifying “selfless love, disciplined study, sharing and commitment to truth.” And then there’s the third word for church, basilica, which refers to a building in which people gather.

Historically, there were no church buildings where the early Christians gathered. When the Apostle Paul wrote his letters to the churches, the letters were carried and read aloud to the assemblies, wherever the people designated as their gathering spot. In essence, the church was the people. But as centuries scrolled by, there was a move to organize and institutionalize religion. With the emperor Constantine legalizing Christianity, Christians could come out their home meetings gradually and meet out in public. By the Middle Ages, the masses of the population were not educated, and oftentimes the church building (cathedral) was a pictorial symbol of all things holy.

Fast forwarding several centuries, this pattern continued and the great cathedrals all over the world illustrate a reverent attachment to the church building. The Catholic Church was THE church, as in, only church-- the ekklesia, the koinonia (supposedly), and the basilica all rolled up into one idea of church. By the time the Protestant Reformation rolled around, the pattern was well established, still placing a great amount of emphasis on the building…the church building was the central hub around which people with similar religious ideas gathered (not that this was a new idea; gathering for religious practices goes back before the word church even, but for the purposes of this blog, we’re talking about the term church with respect to Christianity). But at least the idea of the church being the people came back around.

Regardless of the number of brands of Christianity, Unity is still considered a Christian movement.  The co-founders of Unity had Christian backgrounds and they worked with Christian principles and other principles until they assimilated spiritual ideas that worked for them. Not that they were trying to start a church, but the principles began to work for others. They, too, like the early New Testament churches started meetings in their homes.  However, it was the people who lived the spiritual ideas of the Christ within wanting to meet for further study, fellowship, etc., that spawned it into a movement, and yes, church buildings and meeting places sprang up.

A well-circulated quote of Charles Fillmore says, “Unity is a link in the great educational movement inaugurated by Jesus Christ; our objective is to discern the truth in Christianity and prove it.  The truth that we teach is not new, neither do we claim special revelations or discovery of new religious principles. Our purpose is to help and teach mankind to use and prove the eternal Truth taught by the Master.” (from the book, Prosperity, by Charles Fillmore)

In many respects, this was the result of the koinonia that was activated within the people associating with Unity wherever there was “selfless love, disciplined study, sharing and commitment to truth.”  Unity seems to fit well with the koinonia idea of the word church. Unity is part of that church, the world-wide koinonia, if it wants to be.  It’s up to the people in Unity, as to whether they want to live up to and speak up for spiritual ideas centered in Christ-consciousness, or whether they want to worry about getting labeled and branded as in or out of the Christian church. After all, who’s going to kick them out?

Oh yeah, and that name thing, i.e., what to call the building? The faith charismatic churches already tried calling themselves centers, fellowships, and “new testament” churches in the 70s.  I'm not sure how that worked out for them. But, remember, once someone gets inside a church, they can see what’s going on and they will decide to stay or leave no matter what the sign says outside on the building.

Let's Talk About Sin!

For this week, I will discuss sin. What is it? We all seem to have grown up with some idea of it if we were in some church in America. Dr. Tom Shepherd’s Glimpses in Truth, Chapter 9 says, “Doing something you know is wrong fits almost anyone’s definition of sin.” But how do we know something’s wrong? Well, that’s another blog, maybe.

For many people, it (sin) all began in the Garden of Eden, which we now know is an allegorical story in the Book of Genesis. These primeval narratives in Genesis were the way those authors in those times explained things - -such as how the world began, how did we get here, etc.? Well, in this story about the garden, it has been passed down that, in short, something happened, and they got expelled from the garden. Simply put, the story seems to be saying when you do something you know is wrong, you will have some consequences. Now, whether those consequences bring about self-correction, adjustment, a lesson learned, or growth, is another matter.

 

Hebrew Scriptures tell us that once the covenant was established between God and the children of Israel, then the Book of the Law became a standard for right-standing with God, or righteousness. Sin was seen as a breaking of the law, to transgress against the Law was to transgress against God. That was the standard of doing what was right, i.e., by what was written in the laws. So, sin was seen as a violation of the law.

Fast forward to Jesus - - how much did he preach about sin? The word sin is not mentioned that much in Matthew and Mark’s account (from a quick concordance search on-line). According to those gospels, Jesus went beyond teaching on the outward deeds of not doing this or that, and dug into the heart of things…in other words, think more consciously and with reason about what you’re doing.  It appears Jesus was trying to teach that there was something within us that knows right from wrong. If you keep the Law, you do well, but Jesus started to point to what people were thinking inside, more along the lines of intention.

In other words, don’t think you’re not sinning just because no one sees you commit an act. Jesus taught more about a way of living as in Matthew 5 and 6 and the Sermon on the Mount. (For instance, he kept saying ...you have heard it said...but I say to you.) Could it be that he could see people laboring under the mechanics of the Law and not thinking for themselves?  Actions count, but so does your thinking! In a way, perhaps he was saying “Think, people, think…do YOU think it’s right?” Jesus, according to Mark 12, had this to say about the commandments to love God and neighbor - -“There is no other commandment greater than these.” Was Jesus saying that having the law of love in our hearts would be enough to keep us from sinning? Or, was that just a beginning? And what’s love got to do with it?

If we’re made in the image and likeness of God as written in Genesis 1:26, and if God is love, then humankind inherits this capability and potentiality of love as well. Ed Rabel, Unity teacher (according to Glimpses in Truth), defines sin as “any attempt to negate Divine Ideas.” For example, love is a Divine Idea that humans can choose or not choose to live in accordance with since humans have free will. Thinking or acting in a manner that goes against your true spiritual essence of love, peace, or wholeness could be another way of defining sin.  New Thought pioneer Charles Fillmore defines sin in The Revealing Word as – “missing the mark, that is, falling short of divine perfection.  Sin is man’s failure to express the attributes of Being - - life, love, intelligence, wisdom, and the other god qualities.” (He sounds a little like the Apostle Paul’s letter in Romans 3:23 –“since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” in his definition.)

Rabel’s definition seems to bring in more of a sense of volition regarding sin by saying “any attempt” to negate divine ideas. Humans can block the expression of the Divine Ideas by making choices or thinking thoughts that are contrary to the pattern of divine perfection that’s in each of us. It’s up to us to choose if we want to live in harmony with and give expression to those ideas or not. Both Rabel and Fillmore seem to be saying that the “bar” we aim for is to express Divine Ideas. Our intention is key. If we examine our intentions, that might be a good place to start to mull over whether we’re sinning or not. Then we can decide what to do next…Forgive? Stop the behavior? Repeat the behavior? Start all over, try again? Keep at it. It’s a lifestyle, not a diet. The main thing is to keep aiming toward the mark, expressing the divine spiritual being you are.

 

Namaste

What have they done to my Jesus?

What has the New Testament (NT aka Christian Scriptures) done with my Jesus? This is a question many people ask when they hear that much of the NT is myth. True, the NT is wrapped up in a lot of myth. The myth about myths, though, is the word myth has the connotation that something is not true. But myths are not necessarily untruths. So, good news! Myth is not a word to fear. According to our text, Glimpses in Truth, Rudolf Bultmann wanted to take the NT and “strip away its pre-scientific worldview, while preserving the kerygma (kernel of truth) wrapped within its archaic thought-forms.” Bultmann says in his essay (Kerygma and Myth, A Theological Debate), “The real purpose of myth is not to present an objective picture of the world as it is, but to express man’s understanding of himself in the world in which he lives.”

Many of us are now aware that we live in a very different time from when the stories about Jesus were written. That world was a very different place. The writings were very different and reflected the influences of their time. The swirling influences of the day included Greek philosophy, mystery cults, a three-floor cosmological construct, etc. Once Jesus went off the scene, the world was left to wrestle and tease out what exactly his coming and going meant. They used what was readily available to them and put into words what they thought it all meant based on their existence in the world at that time. They fought it out with some schools saying Jesus was fully divine and some saying fully human and some in between or both. And we’re still having to fight it out today, outwardly and inwardly within ourselves.

Charles Fillmore, co-founder of Unity, wrestled with the human-divine paradigm. As much as the language in his books sounds like traditional Christianity, it seems like he was much like the people in the NT, trying to explain the human-divine paradox with words and expressions of the day amongst a Christian population. But it seems he ended up hitting upon some of the kernels of truth in the NT such as “let this mind be is you that was also in Christ Jesus” and “Christ in you the hope of glory,” that resonated with the idea of Jesus Christ being the “normative” Way Shower, i.e., siding with the view that it is possible to live as humans with this “Christ-in-us” the way Jesus did.

There appears to be the thread of both human and divine in the New Testament, but through the centuries, in the approvals of religious authorities of the Nicene Creed and other such creeds, varying agendas got pushed. So, who can identify the human/divine paradox if it’s buried in the creeds and not really preached or taught on a Sunday morning in the churches? While many still mentally assent to those creeds (which in fact include the fully human/fully divine nature of Jesus Christ), in actuality they might not even be aware of the question of whether Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Even today, people may in actuality lean toward a Jesus who is purely divine (the view that actually preaches better), because…well…doesn’t it give us greater satisfaction that something or someone greater and more divine than us can be called upon to help us? We humans (or some) like to put Jesus on a pedestal way far out of reach, assuming we can never be that (like Jesus).  So then the question becomes what have WE done with our Jesus? Have we put him on a shelf?

For a layperson, it might be hard to come to grips with the mythology in the NT. It might be too hard to decipher where all the mythological influences are in the NT, or where to even start.  So baby steps would have to be taken. Wait, do we need to even de-mythologize everything if there are still messages for us in those myths?

Can all this wrestling can be done in one lifetime, something that theologians have wrestled with for the last couple of millennia? What to do with Jesus? What is important is that we engage with Jesus again. Take him down off the shelf. Maybe start with do we even believe the historical Jesus existed... and just stay with that a while. And then what does that mean to you outside of what all you’ve been told in Sunday School? It's a start.

Bultmann said in his essay, “Hence the importance of the New Testament mythology lies not in its imagery but in the understanding of existence which it enshrines. The real question is whether this understanding of existence is true. Faith claims that it is, and faith ought not to be tied down to the imagery of New Testament mythology.”

So, without all the trappings and the NT “wrapper” - - would the messages of Jesus’ life overall still shine through as a matter of the heart, by faith, regardless of what century he lived and died in, even if it was today?  I’ll take his example of being human and divine and wrestle with it some more.

 

Inside or Out? How do we pray?

Should we pray to God within or to God outside of us? As discussed in class this past week, most types of prayer fall into basically two categories: communication and reflection. I don’t know that we have to choose in an either/or fashion.  Should anyone tell us which way we “should” pray? Shouldn’t you practice what works for you in your spiritual journey? And wouldn’t it depend on your understanding of God?

Most world religions have some type of prayer practice. Buddhist chant devotionals, Islam has the second pillar of praying five times a day, etc. As Dr.Tom Shepherd pointed out, there are indications that as far back as several thousands of years in early civilizations that humans have taken in part in some kind of religion or worship (e.g., Göbekli Tepe). Humankind seeks answers. When we as humans look at the world and events that we don’t understand, we automatically look for meaning. We try to think, we try to rationalize and comprehend what is happening to us.  Primitive forms of prayer involved invoking deities who were thought to be happy or unhappy, in hopes of appeasing them in some way so that we could go about living harmoniously and in balance with the earth, the crops, the weather, the tribe, etc. So, prayer could be viewed as a way of interacting (whether by communing or reflecting) with that which is beyond our natural comprehension, be it to a deity or a mountain or a spirit.

The primitive forms of prayer were oftentimes directed to a god outside or separate from humans. Over the centuries, prayer practices evolved as humankind evolved. While some of the practices were carried forward and refined based on new understanding, some practices fell by the wayside (like animal sacrifice in worship ceremonies). Nevertheless, there still persists this thing called prayer, and now we wrestle with “how” we do it.

So to address the original question above regarding praying to God within or outside of ourselves, one would have to establish a definition of prayer and an understanding of God, both of which can vary. There are all kinds of definitions for prayer, just as there are all kinds of perceptions of God.

A simple dictionary meaning for prayer (dictionary.com) would be: 1. a devout petition to God or an object of worship, 2. a spiritual communion with God or an object of worship, as in supplication, thanksgiving, adoration, or confession. However, for many, the first definition conjures up images of an anthropomorphic God outside of us, which many in Christian and New Thought circles have transcended, and viewed as somewhat primitive. This could be why some folks have a problem with the concept of praying to a God outside us. Perhaps, this makes them feel separate and apart from God. And the point of prayer for them is communion, establishing connection with God. It is possible in this modern society, that people desire more closeness, even oneness with God, not more separateness.

The second definition “a spiritual communion” sounds more like what Charles Fillmore, co-founder of Unity, states in the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (534-535). It defines prayer as “communion between God and man.” He goes on to say that we “turn our attention within to the very center of our being, where the Father dwells.” (Father, meaning God) Further down, it reads, “Here is the recognition of the all-inclusiveness and completeness of Divine Mind (God). Everything has its sustenance from this one source…” By focusing on God within, this definition points to a sense of completeness, regardless of what the prayer concern is. Many folks practicing this type of affirmative prayer may favor it because of the union or oneness they sense and perhaps because this is what has proven to be effective and fulfilling in their lives. Whether it’s meditation, contemplative prayers, intercessory or whatever kind of prayer a person prefers, there is probably a reason the person prefers it. Perhaps he or she experiences the assurance, connectedness, or peace he or she desires and finds. Why else would they spend time doing it?

Jesus taught extensively on prayer in the Gospels and many have interpreted those teachings in different ways.  It is a question of interpretation as far as what anyone will take from these teachings and how they will apply them. In Matt 6:6, Jesus says “But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” Some people take this to mean going within your heart and shutting out the world or external mind chatter; but then right in the same sentence it says “pray to,” which some people take to mean you’re praying to a God outside yourself.  Is Jesus saying to go to God within?

This question is almost like saying how do you prefer to get clean, by taking a shower or taking a bath? If God is indeed infinite, omnipresence, omniscience, then whether you direct the prayer within, up, or out, there would be contact. Right? How could you miss if God is there whenever and wherever you pray? Since God can be considered Transcendent and Immanent, it would seem to leave us with our options open to access God either way. Effective prayer that gives the sense of union and is infused with faith, sincerity and receptivity of the heart, earnestness, could be experienced either way. You get to choose.

Spiritual but not Religious

This catchy phrase has been circulating quite a few years now.  For some reason, I could not bring myself to buy the bumper sticker ("spiritual but not religious") after church. I guess I wasn’t quite settled on the phrase. When I first heard of this phrase at the church I was attending a few years ago, I originally thought it was the result of a Pew study about America’s church-going habits (but I can’t locate the study right now).  Then I found it was also stemming from the results of a branding study done for Unity[1], which I decided to review when this topic came up in class.  There were a high percentage (62%) of external survey respondents who were no longer associated with the religion of their childhood.  They still considered themselves to be spiritual, i.e., meaning they still valued connection to God, but not with all the trappings or the same ritualistic practices they might have experienced as they were growing up under in their parents’ household. I think my church’s marketing team thought this phrase “spiritual but not religious” would attract people to Unity and implied that if someone wanted to come back to having a spiritual connection, Unity would be an option to consider. It sounded like a good intellectual approach.

What I felt cautious about (and still do) is that the very same folks in the “spiritual but not religious” bunch, can end up being just as dogmatic and religious as what they’re claiming to distinguish themselves from. When I think of it now, Unity can indeed be considered religious, according to the definition (a set of beliefs and practices); we do the same things weekly like sing the peace song, read the Daily Word, a meditation, prayer, take up offerings, sing, and the minister speaks…and most of the time all of this is in the same order each week (have you ever tried changing it?) There are certain things, however, I do like about those practices, particularly the message they carry about wholeness, abundance, Oneness, etc. It’s no longer so much about adhering to dogma and creed for me; I have room and freedom to grow and explore in an atmosphere of love in Unity. So, basically, I guess maybe the phrase spiritual but not religious does not work for me. We are religious with aspect to doing a set of practices. However, religion has a negative connotation for a lot of people because of past experiences, and it seems that's what the phrase was trying to play upon.

Interestingly, the external respondents to the branding survey said this about memories and feeling about “church” as they recalled early exposure to “Christianity”-- repeatedly, certain words came up considered to be negative, i.e., fear/fear-based, hypocritical, boring, judgmental, guilt/guilt-based, strict, dogmatic, and manipulative. I tend to think that if people come into any church, including Unity, and see these characteristics, they will probably not stay for long. Apparently, if people were raised in a strict atmosphere, they are looking for a change from that. Positive words from early memories include family, community, love, liked Sunday School, fun, music, safe/safety.

Where I find myself today (in Unity) is because I was not running from a religious experience necessarily but was always looking for deeper experience, meaningful connection with God, i.e, spirituality. I’ve learned to focus more on what I’m for rather than what I’m against. When I frame my decisions in terms of what is calling to me in my heart, it makes more sense (head and heart-wise) and I get more peace within myself for what my soul is calling for.  I feel like I eventually outgrew each church that I had attended over the years, and my soul just knew I was open for the next experience. Somehow, I have just trusted I would be led (it must be my love of Psalm 23; I believe I will be led) to a spiritual community that teaches how to live and practice the teachings of Jesus. Just so happens, again referring to the survey of externals (people outside of Unity), they saw ---“Spiritual social action, such as feeding the homeless, building Habitat for Humanity houses or other community service”[2] as the top appealing feature for a Unity church/Center. Could it be that culturally, the tide is turning or has turned toward more and more people who want to experience a deeper spiritual connection with God AND their fellow man AND also practice, really practice, their religion in a tangible fashion via spiritual social action?

---

[1] BrandSolutions, January 2010 Unity Branding Research Results, Freeland, WA, 2009

[2] BrandSolutions, January 2010 Unity Branding Research Results, Freeland, WA, 2009

How Shall We Believe?

What gave Jesus His authority? Will we ever have that kind of certainty? How and when?

When I read the accounts of Jesus’ ministry, it seems that by the time he really matured into the ministry to which we have visibility through the Gospels that he has done his homework. By homework, I mean really emerged himself in the Hebrew Scriptures, since childhood even, which was the customary in his time and in his community. When you are raised in a tradition from childhood, you are handed a set of beliefs before you can even rationalize them for yourself. It would have been easy to just take that and run with it.

 Forgive me if this sounds funny, but I wonder if he have relatives all around him grooming him, telling him his mission, and who he was. Did they sit around at dinner and tell him, “You know, Jesus, our people have been waiting on you for centuries. You can’t go out and play - - you need to study, go to temple, and hit the books to learn what the prophets have said and be about your Father’s business.” We don’t know; there is little written about Jesus’ childhood, but to me it sounds like he was raised as any Jewish boy in the community would have been raised, which seemed normal or typical for them in that particular time period. We do have the account in Luke 2:41 that tells us how Jesus’ family made a trip to the temple and as they left on their way back home, Jesus was missing. He was still in the temple, showing that he was given to studying the scriptures, laying the groundwork. So he had a foundation, a framework from which to operate, if you will, and a tradition and knew them well. Traditionalism, that is, “just going along because this is the way we’ve always done it,” did not trap him, however. There seemed to have been some initiative on his part to “get lost” and stay in the temple. He read and knew the scriptures, but he also observed what was going on around him. How did Jesus know what he knew? I think he definitely put the time in.

 We don’t hear about the rebellious teenager part. God forbid! You mean Jesus was a rebellious teenager? If ever there was an archetype, I would venture to say this is one. We still see them today. Yeah, us. I thought my story was unique until I got to seminary and kept hearing almost the same story. Something happens (around junior high, high school, then college) and the answers we’ve been given over and over in the religion of our childhood just don’t jive any more. Many of us go off to college and our families pray we don’t stray. We still believe, but we start to experience life on our own, to reason, to question, and try to untangle and sort out exactly what we do believe! How shall we believe? That is now up to us. Do you think this questioning might have happened within Jesus as he matured through those adolescent years? Was his life experience beginning to show something other than what he saw in scripture, maybe?

In Dr. Thomas Shepherd’s Glimpses of Truth, Chapter 3 – How Do I Know What’s True, he discusses pragmatic idealism and ways to test our religious ideas. From reading the Gospel accounts, it appears Jesus seemed to have had the full package. By that I mean, an epistemology that seemed to have the ingredients of “scripture, tradition, experience, and both intellectual and intuitive Reason.” All four Gospels convey to me that Jesus was indeed out in everyday life in and about the towns and the temple observing whether or not the ideas were working for him or his people; he was also constantly in dialogue and encounters with all types of people in the communities, including the Pharisees and Sadducees; and his healing ministry was holistic, not just relieving physical ailments but genuinely caring about the whole person. I believe he began to see for himself as many of us do - - does our religion ring true and measure up to the kingdom of God - - do we even meet our own standards of what we think that is? I believe if we wrestle with these ideas as Jesus did on the mountain praying all night, or whatever it takes, we too can come down to the real-life world and feed the multitudes. Just think, the Master Teacher said we’d do greater things than he.

The Need to Read - - Are Our Sacred Texts Our Sacred Cows?

I overheard an interesting conversation in Starbucks last night. A person was discussing with a young couple the differences in Christians and Muslims. I couldn’t help but want to listen for some theological topics he might cause me to reflect upon. So I listened.  I was hard pressed to come up with just one topic, but here’s one. As the discussion seemed to continue along the lines of what the Bible says versus what the Qur’an says…I wondered just what role does the Bible and the Qur’an, or any religion’s sacred text, play in our lives? How are we using these sacred texts and why?

Granted, of course, among my many lenses, I have a Christian lens because I was raised in a Christian home, from birth. So I know that I have embedded theology that I constantly have to examine, reflect upon, and re-think (we all do). Thank goodness! Even though I’m more familiar with the Bible, I’ve read the Bhagavad Gita and parts of other sacred texts.  But somewhere along the way, as much as I valued the reading of scripture as a spiritual practice, I also knew that the Bible could be turned and manipulated to fit just about anything people wanted to put some kind of authoritative stamp on, even slavery. I've learned about the many mistranslations, redactions, and the bad “cut and paste” jobs, and that it is not exactly a history book. AND, there's no theology in the Bible!! But still, there is something that draws us to our sacred texts.

One of the greatest inventions in human civilization besides fire was the written word, the ability to write and capture a thought in physical form. Could this possibly be one of the reasons why words seem to become “law,” etched in stone, once they’re written down? Look at the print media, for instance. We seem to attach some of our identity to words. We are constantly reading trying to find something to hang our hats on that we can identify with, that resonates with us, that tells us more about ourselves, where we belong, where we fit in the world, etc. And while I believe we should all have the right (the freedom) to seek our own spiritual understanding by reading whatever sacred text we desire, I also believe we should not be so legalistic and literal and enforce our beliefs on others. This is another one of the many paradoxes with which I wrestle:  freedom and responsibility. Just as the man in Starbucks has every right to believe in his holy book, I would hope he would afford me the same freedom. I think it’s my personal responsibility to value other viewpoints. But to what extent? Do I let other denominational or religious viewpoints then run over me? I think not; but I think my responsibility is to be open enough to listen and weigh what I am hearing for myself and then act or respond accordingly.

I think our reading of sacred texts is related to a basic need we humans have along the lines of identity and belonging. Sacred texts can be a common focal point of bonding for people, a touch point, a point of reference, if you will; so much so, that once the words become so intertwined with one’s identity, deep identity issues can cause division and cause some to come to blows or start wars even. Those sacred words can become “fighting words.” Nevertheless, as people come to a church for many reasons with various needs, I think there is a great responsibility to balance how scripture is used and applied in a spiritual community, in our world, and in our lives. Our challenges are to find new ways of making scripture relevant and workable in our current times, to become more aware of our lenses, learn about other sacred texts and religions, and find ways to open up conversations about the commonalities in our sacred texts as we become more of a global community.

My Theology Today - A Starting Point

These are some of my basic beliefs today. Faith is the ability to believe and perceive. I have faith and believe that an eternal, infinite power and presence, called many different things,…well, it just is. It exists. For simplicity, I call it God; some people call it creative energy, Spirit, or Source. Realizing that the name can never really do the invisible Presence and Power any justice whatsoever, its character and qualities go beyond naming; but nevertheless, I believe it can be experienced and I believe I do experience it in a real way. The experience of God for me is what keeps me on a spiritual quest as a seeker, hungering and thirsting for the rich plunge into the depths of the mystical experience of God. The more I find out, the more I want to know. Yet, somehow, I am continually satisfied in my soul, body, and mind when I tune in to God. This allows me to experience joy, peace, love, and harmonious living in many ways. 

I believe I am a spiritual entity, one with God, of the same essence as God (Spirit), but continuing to grow and expand in awareness and degree in this physical dimension of existence - - as such, I am inextricably linked to God and all of creation and can replicate order, peace, love, wisdom, and any other God qualities in my life as I learn to act, speak, and think in alignment with principles and ideals of God.

Being one with God, I can at any moment attune myself to the Presence of God in prayer and meditation, or by reading and contemplating scripture, or by singing or worshiping with others in a spiritual community. I believe God is everywhere-present and all-knowing. This Presence is readily accessible. I don’t pray to a god. But, as I focus my mind and heart on God and on sacred timeless truths that I believe to be God-inspired, it is from this centeredness that I pray and I commune in and with God. I believe in Oneness, that I am forever intertwined and connected with God; I can never be separate from God.  Even when I was a small child, I believed in God, but a more separate God, a somewhere-out-there God - - somehow, if I could make contact with God, pray right, live right, give right, then I could affect some kind of change in my life. But now, I understand the Infinite Presence as active in, as, and through me. I don’t have to “get” anything from God. My part is to wake up and recognize my Oneness with God. My recognition of Oneness is my fulfillment, love, abundance, and all other expressions of an abundant life. And I believe this is possible for everyone, as we are all expressions of God.

Faith keeps me living and seeing the blessings that come from being open to the wisdom and joys of life. Faith is the exciting part of being alive. It is because of this faith that I act in the world in accordance with what I believe the truths and principles of God are, individually and in community. I do not try to appease some deity as in the early development of humankind, but my intention is to be in communion and union, birthing new creations of good each day.

Blessings,
Dinah