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