In several threads I have written in, I have often come to think that we disagree because a creative impulse is rejected for the controlled, orthodox and traditionalistic approach. I have been in a retreat for the past few days with a Church group of Care Managers in various areas of Elderly Care, and we noticed that we were, independent of being man or woman, a group of highly creative persons. Our CEO however, despite being a deacon in the church, is very cautious, controlled and inflexible and we noticed how the whole time was taken up “translating”.
Another example: I recently held a Bible meeting on Joshua. My style is really to re-tell the story, using input from various sources and giving a direction for the modern day. I am critical but observant of some of the things that are taken for granted in the Bible, like the fact that Joshua was given the task to occupy Canaan and effectively dislodge the people living there. Using this approach, creativity leads the way, allowing for example the OT conflict to ask us where we are called to be apart or separate, but including the call of Jesus to love our enemies. This irritated people who came from more conservative groups, and we nearly lost the inspirational and directional in the meeting.
In these experiences, I often have the feeling that groups or individuals are in contention, because the one allows intuition, creativity and vision to guide them, whereas the other demonstrates a need for a matter-of-fact, prosaic and stable approach. The latter is experienced by creative people as the drearily commonplace and often predictable view, which is turned more towards the past than the future. On the other hand, intuition, creativity and vision are under suspicion of being uncontrollable, fancy and unreal.
My reading of the Bible shows me this controversy as an ongoing problem. All of the spiritual leaders in Israel had problems with the deliberate, guarded and red-necked approach of the politicians which threatened to take Israel into banality and the leaders were reserved about the visionary inspiration that came from the prophets. In the same way, fundamentalism feels threatened by inspirational Spirituality, and tries to contain it within banality.
When one is soft
s/he feels good to touch & be touched by;
s/he cannot break others or be broken;
s/he can bend and extend.
I would think that creativity is better then banality.
You can say that agian!
Suicidally, selflessly taking abuse is what I’ve seen a lot of within the insanely faithful… That aint right. If you are truly good, and your enemy is your oposite, I suggest that you chose to destroy your enemy instead of allowing your enemy to destroy you.
stick to your guns. The Holy Spirit is the greatest testiment to the power of Jesus. As science evolves our understanding of the world, our perception of God can change to somewhat of a psychological approach. I used to go to one church where psychology was often used to reiforce the bible.
Yet science is in an infancy. It has yet to recognize the single most important element of human exsistance,… the soul. So all scientific theories are void of many things that make us tick.
I like the statistic that says that couples that pray together have more intamit relationships. Yet science has a real hard time proving prayer works. Maybe because there are factors that science cannot test.
IE
A traveling preacher recieved an e-mail to pray for a terminally ill wife. As the preacher was passing through he prayed to God about what to do. God told him, “Tell her to forgiver her husband and she will be healed.” When the preacher relayed this message the wife blew up saying, “No, he cheated on me in our first year of marriage,… and for that I will never forgive him.” Needless to say, she is dead. Yet would life really be better if she has so much hatred she couldn’t forgive to save her life? God is more worried about charecter then healing. That’s why countries that go against God will fall out of God’s favor,… and suffer the concequeces of God’s lack of grace.
I guess I feel compelled to point out that maintaining the status-quo can be considered creative. Resurfacing an existing road is a creative act. Allowing it to continue to exist, in the way in which it was designed, requires constant diligence. By so doing, we create the road’s future. This it seems to me is as creative as building a brand new road.
I’m not disagreeing with your overall point. But I think we need to be careful when one side of an argument accuses the other side of a lack of creativity. You may, in fact, just not like what it is they consider to be creative. Your creativity may seem more “creative” to you, but it is all creativity nonetheless.
To many this expression would appear foolish, drearily commonplace and surely predictable. Others might find each experience of it novel and psychologically valuable.
Often we think we are being creative but in reality just silly and our attitudes towards blind reaction in support of tradition is somehow doing God’s will. clearly this is not so but at the same time it should be so. There is no reason why people can not be creative in the light of the Christian tradition but it seems like naivety both in creativity and tradition denies it. How is one to fully appreciate what Meister Eckhart says here:
The essential good of the old legit traditions is to help us become what we are. Most are unconcerned with this believing we already “are” and only worry about what to do. Orthodox tradition ideally reflects the grounding necessary to minimize the tendency to abandon what we are to what we do. From this perspective, apparent inflexibility isn’t necessarily an evil. Yet from what I’ve seen in the world, there is a lot missing both in terms of what we are and what we do.
Jacob Needleman in “Lost Christianity” discovers why Father Vincent seemed so not like the usual priest. It seems that while he was in Africa participating in the building of a school, he was for a while a favorite of the natives. All of a sudden the tribe as a whole asked him to leave without an explanation. For several reasons he decided against it even though under the circumstances, his associates felt it a good idea to ease tensions.
So finally the big day comes for the opening of the school and a grand celebration is to take place. The tribal community comes to attend and once again he is accepted. Through mingling with the community he finally figured it out. It seems that they liked him on the inside and wanted to accept him into their community but to do this he had to drop the priestly personae and just be him. They were asking his personality to leave and forhim to remain. Where for us it seems normal to worry about making the right impression and be inspiring in religious matters, these people just wanted him to be real because they could see through the act and valued him on the inside.
How to be creative and be real by having become able to “understand” in accordance with our psycho/spiritual potential? Then perhaps explaining banality may become possible.
The problem with that approach is clearly that nothing changes. It goes on and on. I find that Jesus and his followers managed to change the world – even though it seems to be returning back to the state it was in before, perhaps because we’ve given up trying.
Hi Phil27of79,
Guns definitely don’t suit me and I don’t follow what you mean …
The soul, or the psyche, is something which psychology tries to understand. I have no doubt that the part that is most elusive is the spiritual side of life, which seems most irrational, but does “make us tickâ€.
Hi Jerry,
Creativity means to have the ability to create. Maintenance is maintenance. I believe that the most important gift of the spirit is the ability to create new ways to hope, believe and love. The Spirit is about “newness†and “renewalâ€, about giving birth and reproduction, about finding new words and new melodies, about finding new roads and paths.
The banal often arises out of fear and insecurity. It is afraid that movement could cost us what we have. It has no vision, no faith, and no love. It has no driving force. It is boring and dreary.
Hi Nick,
I don’t know, do you?
It really depends on the circumstances, the congregation, the inspiration and devotion of those involved.
And the point is …
How on earth did I know that if I get these words shoved at me, they would be from you?
I have chewed on this for a while, but it has no taste – what is it?
Just allow the words to speak to you … it works for me!
You are very unprecise here.
Some people are just creative without trying to be. They are not worried about trying to make a “right†impression, but just transport the ideas that are awoken within them. When such people met people with a lot of questions, it isn’t unusual for them to be asked and they answer those questions.
In a way, it often appears that pure formality, that supreme incarnation of the absolute hieratism is a bit ridiculous, as it is just in a minor way tangent with day-to-day contingencies. To do what is required of you (even if that means not reaching the fruition of your potential of being), as opposed to doing what you like, as the antics put it (so that you may fulfil yourself, o be read behind the lines) accentuates, in my opinion, the dichotomy between the unity of form and that of content.
Lack of creativity in the manner you talk about it seems to me synonymous with the primate of form over content, which slightly tones up the rigidity of one’s conduct, by permitting only the like of necessity and sternness to rule the individual’s life; the gentle ridicule that one has to face in this situation is in the inadequacy of the universal rule to a particular context. Ethics takes here its place somewhere above the sensible world, looking down on it.
On the other hand, by embracing the self-fulfilling branch, of constant renewal through innovation, one has the advantage of lending a personal identity to every gesture, even if is a random one or, at the limit, an act of anarchy.
Either way, both approaches seem a bit precarious, the former blocked in formal gestures, while the latter concentrated narcissistically on inner growth. Ethics, however, shouldn’t have to be up against such problems; ethics should be a way of introducing both unity of form andcontent in the individual’s life. A middle approach is, therefore, needed.
Quite true. One can only really value water when they’ve experienced thirst.
Christianity is for those that have experienced its calling and Christendom is for those that have experienced its calling.
You must be psychic. Stop being so defensive. I don’t bite. In the art world for example much is just plain silly but people call it art so it is defined as creative.
I was rushed and wrote that wrong. What I meant to say was that it is entirely possible for one to retain their “Christianity” without sacrificing it in the attempt to become “creative.” Actually we truly only “create” when in higher states of presence.
I don’t mean to be so. The point is that the collective human condition is to overestimate what we are and what we do. The ancient traditions are inflexible in asserting the value of humility in acknowledging the human condition much to the annoyance of many experts.
This is superb for regular life, in many forms of Christendom, and other earthly religions. However, from the transcendent perspective of Christianity, such answers except in very rare cases are just normal associative thought asserting itself in the absence of the Spirit.
Bob, I have nothing against sects. They can do a lot of good as well as evil on earth. I just wish there was a greater recognition between the depths of the essence of religion and these various sects. I know it won’t happen just like only a few will admit to the difference between art and expression. As I see it we’ve lost our capacity to respect objective quality even theoretically since it has become PC to assume no such difference exists and quality is defined by the eye of the beholder. But that is another topic.
As I see it, the problem begins the moment we come together… Im’ a bit shakey on the issue of creativity, since in my mind it means rebellion, and there are few who will leave tradition and begin anew. Rather, it is a lack of innovation - keeping the structure, but finding new ways of bringing the spirit rather than the law. Ultimately it comes down to those who just want to read the ‘operator’s manual’, and those who would rewrite the manual to make better sense to those who need to understand. I really find no answers that satisfy either group. Both are perceived as a threat to each other. It is a constant battle, trying to find the new metaphor than quickens the spirit - without being perceived as threatening to topple the church. At some point, we all see what we want to see. That agreement is hard to come by is the stuff of religion.
Hi Bob. I don’t mean to split hairs but somebody has to take the side of tradition here which you are essentially arguing against. Keeping a tradition alive can be a very creative thing. It doesn’t mean there is “no vision, no faith, no love, no driving force…boring and dreary.†It can actually mean quite the opposite.
Much of religion is based on this idea of tradition. We immerse ourselves in the traditions of our fathers and grandfathers, and their fathers and grandfathers. In this way we bridge the gap between past and present, we connect with humanity down through the ages. We sing “Silent Night†on Christmas Eve to the same tune that it was sung for the first time 188 Christmas Eves ago at a midnight mass in a small village church in Oberndorf, Austria. We recite the Lord’s Prayer the same way it has been recited since Christ first introduced it. Imagine the people throughout history who have said those same words! We share that prayer with all of them. We take communion because we believe we are reenacting Christ’s last supper on Earth, and in that reenactment, we are, in some small way, a part of that original meal.
If we’re Americans we light fireworks on the 4th of July. We insist of having cranberry sauce on the table for Thanksgiving, but would never consider it at any other meal ever. Why do we have these traditions? Because, through tradition, a connection is made. The past comes alive, the ghosts of yesterday join us here and now.
All of this is a process. A long, historical, ongoing process. And a very creative one that we have the opportunity to participate in, to be a part of. Again, I may just be splitting hairs but it seems to me that you are simply choosing which means of creativity you feel is more “creativeâ€.
Notice the gentle, subtle, judgmental comments on those that Bob wishes to make his targets: It was those that came from “conservative groups” that were the problem. It is those like his CEO that are inflexible. It is those that take “red-necked” approaches, those that embrace “fundamentalism” that are threatened. It is those types that have "no vision, no faith, and no love.. The type of faith that “has no driving force. It is boring and dreary” is the problem. One could almost miss Bob’s criticisms of the those conservative groups as he shifts his focus onto his intuitive, creative, visionaries! The irony, the tragedy, of course is that what Bob asks of those who take the “controlled, orthodox and traditionalistic approach” is no different than what they would ask of Bob.
Disparaging the old “banal” thinking just may be the best way to legitimize this visionary, inspiring, and creative thinking. There’s nothing like rejecting tradition outright only to replace it with something better, bigger, cuter, nicer, more flexible… Come one, come all, and get your brand new religion! Today only: Feel 50% closer to god while observing 30% fewer rules and intaking half the fat as before! If I didn’t know any better, Bob, I would accuse you of being a capitalist.
thanks for the replies. I suppose really that my thesis is that I am expecting a self-actualisation of spiritual messages, otherwise those messages become banal. Words written three thousand years ago need actualisation to remain a current issue.
Mucius Scevola,
I believe that the content of a statement isn’t necessary contradictory to the form, but that time does test both. The form seems to me to be the most susceptible to becoming dated, and of course form does also tell us a lot about the people adhering to some kind of tradition. This is especially true about Christian belief, considering the fact that the millennia since Christ have provided a vast variance of forms. It is a particular problem however, when the form rules over the content.
My particular concern with this is the fact that Mankind always was and still is a race of storytellers. As long as the form allows for this to continue, the tradition can be passed on. Once that stories are cemented into place or conserved in a literal sense, or ideas are only allowed to be formed under strict observation of past ideas, that tradition becomes recitative verses like the Qu’ran. This however, is not Christian tradition. The inspiration that Peter talks of in Acts is intuitive and dynamic.
I think to some degree, the author of the Lucan writings was trying to point out the danger that early Christianity was in, when the story of Philip and Stephen is told. Furthermore, he sketches a development towards stability within the Church, despite the reaction by the authorities, which apparently decapitated the movement around about 60-70 AD. I think he was saying that the church needed an intuitive and inspirational time, but that since the Apostles had nearly all been killed, it was stability that the church needed. The author of Luke wrote for a community which awaited the arrival of God’s Realm, but which was also concerned about its life in another Realm, the Realm of Caesar.
I think we need to do these facts justice, but not in conserving the letters, but in allowing the inspirational spirit move amongst us.
Which, if you would see it, is where I am. I draw from the past and show the relevance in modern times, re-actualising the words, showing that the stories of old are timeless myths and legends of Mankind as we really are. How many Jordans do we have to cross in the the course of a lifetime? How many conflicts do we face, and where do we draw our strength?
Hi Nick,
I feel that I do not give up my being a Christian, just because I move away from what I consider hinders spiritual development. I don’t even move away from dogma, but from dogma that is used to tie people up. There are many things that I would like to see differentiated about my approach. It isn’t even an attack on people, but an observation that this restrictive behaviour can’t, to my mind, be what Christ is about.
I value humility more than you seem to acknowledge – probably more than is good for me too In fact, my wife once told some friends that she thought that if anything ever happened to her, I would probably move into a spiritual retreat and be happy with poverty. I was a bit surprised that she said that, but having thought it through, she is probably right.
It is difficult to diagnose through a telephone, or by reading a letter or posting in the internet.
What “sects†are you referring to? Are you a “beholder�
Hi JT,
I think that creativity “rebels†against banality. It rebels against the “formless and empty†and breathes life into the lifeless, heals the sick, comforts the lonely. If you keep this imagery in mind whilst reading the Bible, you will find a development towards this, with peaks of creativity showing the way. The “Law†is only a law, because Israel had to be careful to obey it, not to turn right or left, not let it depart from their mouths, to meditate on it day and night, so that they may be prosperous and successful. But is an instruction on which the Prophets built up the promises of God. And it was these promises that Christ “believedâ€.
The 3,000 year old “instruction manual†is banal. But with the “breath of the spirit†blown into it, it comes alive and speaks. However, when you have confronted certain movements within Christianity, you begin to differentiate between inspiration and fanatism.
Hi Jerry,
The Bible used to be the one book that everyone had in their houses. A long time back, someone made a study about the influence of the Bible on society and came across an amazing fact. Nearly 80% of those interviewed still had the wrapping around their Bible. It isn’t tradition that I oppose, but lifeless tradition with “no vision, no faith, no love, no driving force…boring and dreary.â€
Silent night is OK, but if you sing it because you love the idea of the “Holy Infant so tender and mild†or in the original, “Holder Knabe im lockigen Haar†then you haven’t much more than a song that is a tearjerker at Christmas. It doesn’t have the power of Christ, for all of the good thing that have happened around it.
The Lords Prayer and Communion are also valuable for all the right reasons, except if it is only used for sentiment. You can use it that way if you want, but when I give out the bread or the wine in a Service, I look people in the eye when I say, “Body of Christ, given for you†or “Blood of Christ, shed for youâ€. It is an important moment for people and a chance to accept the grace of God or ignore it. Only God knows what they choose to do.
Exactly, that is the importance of rites and traditions. It is also the importance of the old legends and myths of the Bible, since it is about us now – not about some ancient world long ago. Prophecy brings the words and the message they carry into the present, makes them true and real now. It doesn’t take us back then. Jesus criticised some of the rites of the Scribes, because they were caught up in yesterday and had no life in them. God isn’t the God of the dead, but of the living.
Hi thirst4metal,
The irony of it all, my friend, is that these people feel the message coming to life. They feel the words leaving the paper and becoming a part of their lives. They don’t ask me to their meetings to be abused by me, but because they know that there is more in these scriptures. The sad thing is, that they are inconsequent about it. They go back to their literalism when I am not there, they lose the glow they felt and start asking God to come down and do this and that for them, although they have known that this has already happened. The Realm of God is in their midst.
There is a legend that says that when Moses was fleeing with Israel from Egypt and they had reached the Red Sea, the leaders of the tribes had to stand knee deep in water before Moses would perform the miracle of separating the waters. They had to commit themselves. How true that is today too!
OK, but what has that to do with being a capitalist? Besides, I don’t tell anyone that we need a “new†religion, or that people can “feel 50% closer to god while observing 30% fewer rulesâ€. I am talking about the renewal of the covenant in our everyday lives – but it requires commitment. It requires inspiration and drive, all of which is called the Holy Spirit in biblical language – the breath of life!
We will forever disagree on this in relation to the value of Christianity. I believe Christianity to be such a profound psychology that I am in awe of it. Since I believe that the Christian experience must be actively searched for with open minded humilitiy, it is not surprising that all these “improvements” are sought in relation to becomeing a good societal influence avoiding the initial non-flattering experience of the realization of ones nothingness.
You believe you are capable of judging what is valuable and banal in Christianity and I know it is beyond me to make such judgements so try to grow into a more objective capacity for discrimination. This is a minority opinion on this board as in most of societal life so let me hide behind some excerpts from the Journal of Father Sylvan as reproduced in Jacob needleman’s “Lost Christianity” so as not to have to take all the scorn.
Bob, I may be wrong but you strike me as a person caught up in improvements while my interest is in moving backwards in perspective through the results of these improvements so as to experience the source before man made expert improvements. Therefore our direction is not the same and perceive banality and creativity differently.
And yet, according to the way I read scripture, the God of the Bible encourages me to speak out in my nothingness. I am encouraged to approach the ineffable God, the curtain of the Holy of Holies is torn and I have access. I am seen by God as the forgiven sinner, reconciled by the cross and given the ring of a Son and Heir. Those are the images of the New Testament. The lesson of Christ is that the forgiven can only forgive, the loved can only love, because they have come to know the grace of a merciful God in Christ Jesus.
The question then arises, whether we have indeed grasped that fact? The cross is the concretion of that reconciliation. It is the final sacrifice for the sin of mankind, no other need follow. The resurrection marks the beginning of a new era for all who are prepared to live that new life in the Spirit. All of the images of the Gospels serve this truth and it is this truth that is inherent for a new life. But the images age – they must become actualised. The rites must carry this central and fundamental truth and find a language and symbols that serve it.
Banality arises when people lose themselves in some antiquated form that has failed to keep up this task, when the form is more important than the content, when being comfortable with a liturgy becomes more important than transmitting and living this central message. The “profound psychology†of Christianity is probably something that I could identify with in a conversation with you over a glass of wine, but is that central? I see the profundity in this simple message that begins with the Cross and Resurrection and continues in a life of service, but which needs a form that can truly transport it to the masses in the modern age.
That is because you insist on the esoterical side. That is the difference perhaps between the Mystic and the Esoteric – the mystic does have an active role as “soul counsellor†and is turned towards the poor and those in need of care. His own spiritual experience is supportive of that role. Mystics generally have problems with authorities, who assume that they are undermining their say-so. Esoterics seem to have more problems with the common people, because people don’t understand them.
Father Sylvan or Jacob Needleman seems to make a case for “improvementsâ€, as you put it, by identifying “the gap separating the ideas and the actual situation†but then warns against doing anything.
Strangely, I am protective of past teaching. But what I do notice is that there is a development to be seen that such words are ambivalent about. They say that there is an interaction, that an “understanding†comes about, but then tell us that we must rule out the chance that the spirit speaks directly to us, and that we could develop an understanding – after all, we are nothing. Very humble, of course …
It is comical to follow the logic and then as ourselves, why, if the Holy Spirit is such a force, do I find myself born two thousand years later, faced with a lot of teaching that is the “end result of a million efforts to make improvementsâ€, criticised for wanting to get to the original, without “expertsâ€, but also without the hope of ever understanding the “profound psychology†of Christianity. You seem to put me “up a creek without a paddle†and yet you don’t possess the ability to show the way out of such a quandary.
This sounds a bit like Jonah, who didn’t want to go to the Ninivites because he knew that God would show mercy if they repented.
Excuse me, but haven’t we no done a full circle and ended up where I started off?
This isn’t about forgiveness, that is where people like these always lead us. I have no-one to forgive, since no-one has done me wrong. It is simply about orientation and what map is going to get me home. This whole carousel only takes us in circles without getting us anywhere. For all of your dislike of “expertsâ€, you cite a great many.
I believe you are wrong. How else could my attempt to reconnect with the language of the Gospels be interpreted, how else could you understand my attempt to understand the Jewish position? Banality is precisely what your experts describe, especially when it is presented to people who are so far off in time and in culture. We need to re-connect to that message, not by expecting people to have an understanding of the past, but by interpreting it as a message for the future. In this process, you appear to me to be one of the experts who stand on the sidelines, telling those actively involved what they are doing wrong, without being involved yourself.
The irony is that you imagine creativity cannot exist within an orthodox framework, that a message come to life only occurs within your uncontrolled, revisionist approach. Somehow you imagine that a traditional interpretation leaves no room for visionary movements; meanwhile, I have observed groups that uphold a strict fundamentalist tradition while maintaining a visionary and creative approach in their worship of their god. This is possible because they comprehend that the bible leaves room for creativity while it outlines a core group of principles. Do you leave any room for this possibility?
Legends are nice and quaint. If the legend is true, there is some value gained. If it is untrue, nothing has been lost. One of my favorite legends is that of Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor. They say FDR knew in advance of the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor and they say he let it be destroyed so that America would commit itself to going over seas (as opposed to in between them). Of course, I don’t think this is the truth… It’s creative, liberal revisionist bullshit.
Capitalists are often accused of selling the “same old product” with new bells and whistles on it and calling the product new… It’s all about marketing the product differently. Nice try, Bob, in capitalizing on the old by calling it new.
And there is nothing within the traditional, orthodox framework that prevents the Holy Spirit from inspiring faith, action, movement, commitment, et al. And while you have not presented your best marketing strategy within this thread, I have seen in other threads your appeals to the notion that being closer to god is a matter of removing a little stumbling block known as historical biblical doctrine.
I think it’s only natural that people following a traditions who’s most important task has been preserving the exact content of a book for 2,000 years would become guarded and irritated at the introduction of making stuff up, or ‘creativity’ as it is sometimes called.
I like Thirst’s notions of salesmanship and capitalism here. It seems to me that if a person wants to be creative, they ought to come up with their own gods, like folks used to do. Perhaps instead of a god that is most often compared to a man, certain spiritual movements could be better conceptualized around a god that is compared to a butterfly, or a rabbit. Perhaps instead of a cross, one could take a pillow or a white flag as their symbol.
We don’t do this, I think, because primarily we know it wouldn’t sell. It’s a lot easier to take an established faith with a billion members, and use it’s traditions, it’s verbiage, maybe even a few of it’s own ideas, to promote and dissemenate what is in reality our own creation, which would never be consumed or entertained by people on it’s own merits.
Maybe the days of real creativity when it comes to spirituality have come to an end.
I have a inspired relationship with my God, I am actively involved in a Christian community, I am an active Bible-reader and hold numerous meetings, I follow a calling I had at the age of 35 to go into Elderly Care. Since then I have increased the amount of counselling I do and am continually confronted by people with real problems. I live in an orthodox framework. How you can regard my approach “ uncontrolled†and “revisionist†is beyond me. I am not even in a “Free Churchâ€, but Elder in a mainstream protestant community.
I think you are mixing things up, I don’t say that “a traditional interpretation leaves no room for visionary movements†but that it is apparent that traditionalists have no visionary movement, and they stagnate or they grasp apocalyptic visions and interpret them like a timetable for current events. The idea of a single inspirational direction isn’t even supported by biblical evidence, but is something that the nicene council attempted to enforce under the influence of Constantine, rather we get the idea of a patchwork of inspiration that the Roman Church suppressed.
The incredible thing is that Church history shows clearly that the Holy Spirit in the Roman church was very “dampened†for nearly a thousand years, and that upheavals like the Reformation brought life back into spiritual inspiration, making clear that there is no continuation of apostolic tradition in the way it is claimed. In reality, and miraculously, the red cord that travels from Jesus to us, is picked up throughout history by minority groups, woven into their reality and is able to fill those communities with life. But throughout that time, it was completely submerged at times beneath the fight for power that ravished Europe.
Thirst, I don’t really know what motivation you have. At least the Roman church has the honesty to say that they have legends alongside scripture that make up a considerable amount of their liturgical festivals. The Jews have written and oral traditions as well as legends that they don’t hide. They are not just “nice and quaint†but give a deeper meaning to the traditions. A number of scriptural sources are known to have “layers†by which it becomes obvious that a tradition has been further developed, added to and edited – like Job for example.
We know a lot about scriptural tradition and it tells us how the development towards a Bible was full of ups and downs, scriptures were lost and found again, traditions were broken and taken up again. The flow of scriptural witness was attempted to be given a general direction, but the contradictions show us that it wasn’t an attempt to streamline scripture, although the editors obviously had an Agenda. What this tells me, and how it consoles me, is in the fact that the past is a lot like the present. Things happened then that are in keeping with our experience in modern times. There is one area where things have to be taken literally, and suddenly we stumble, inspiration begins to fade, and we start falling back into the pits we had in the dark ages.
I then look up and see that we are still at the point where a Galilean looks for faith in Judea. Jesus still looks for faith in the promises of God, it can be as small as a mustard seed, but if we commit ourselves, we can have assurance. Looking at the Gospel in that way, I can grasp the fact that I have been given access by faith in the reconciliation at Calvary, and believe Jesus, that it only requires committed faith and we will experience with awe the grace of God in our lives.
Staying within your analogy, I still sell my wares within the same shop as always, I use the same product names, and I still serve the same customers – perhaps the wrapping paper has changed. Where is your problem?
I think it could lie in the fact that the wares are not “historical biblical doctrine†but love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance – the fruits of the spirit.
Now don’t get upset here and take this as a personal attack but though the Bible speaks of the importance introducing it into humanity as a whole, it also speaks of self deception and false prophets.
I have met those that in all honesty believe themselves in contact with God and sevents of his will. I know it to be clearly self deception either intentional or by emotional escapism into imaginary self importance. Naturally I don’t know where you belong in all this in the span between purity and self deception. I am suggesting that though you give yourself the authority to speak out doesn’t by definition make it valuable in terms of the essence of Christianity.
The fact that Jesus cleared the way to open our being to the Holy Spirit and we do have these experiences of “seeing” doesn’t mean it cannot again become closed and in a worse position than before.
But the message is not all that simple to put into practice. I see the essential message as awakening to the perception of re-birth.The fact that Jesus’ efforts paved the way through his success for one to awaken doesn’t mean they can or will do so. Resistance against it is very strong though the possibility remains. Self deception is a lot easier but leads nowhere.
How does this help in awakening?
From the conclusion of Jacob Needleman’s "Lost Christianity
If it were not possible there would be no sense in bringing it up. The whole purpose of “intermediate Christianity” described by Jacob Needleman is to introduce degrees of “presence” steps towards awakening, or the sacred faculty of Attention"known by the early church fathers and long before as in ancient Egypt for example. This is the purpose of legit esoteric schools. It is how to change ourselves from a sows ear into a silk purse.
People have a hard time letting go of their suffering. Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar.
– Thich Nhat Hanh
If we could forgive we wouldn’t be attached. We are attached to our suffering and when we defend it, cannot forgive it. This is a psychological conception independent of whether someone has done you right or wrong. It is the holy force of reconciliation that provides the perspective for us to see it and be free of it.
I do believe I am involved.
The goal isn’t to interpret the message but to see, to experience the truth of it. The message then becomes timeless though able to be experienced in each generation. In this way it is real art.
It is anonymous because it doesn’t come from an artist but through him. The essence of Christianity is like this since it doesn’t originate with sleeping Mankind but from higher consciousness so its origin cannot be minimized into an idol
What a sweeping statement! Are you sure about the 2,000 years? Of course the book has been around for roughly that amount of time, but what do you really know about the time before the dark ages? And having said that, early Christians didn’t stop at the words of Scripture, but developed new concepts of person, trinity, the liberty of the children of God and the like, and to seek out those implications of the Scripture that had until then seemed hidden. There was a principle of inquiry and intellectual progress built into Christian development at the very beginning.
At the latest in the sixth century the Roman papacy became firmly established. Its seat of power was fixed in the imperial city, and the bishop of Rome was declared to be the head over the entire church. Proficient popes continued to direct the church through this period, developing a theological rationale in order to increase their own power and to create a bureaucracy strong enough to support their efforts to govern the church throughout the West.
The Byzantines on the other hand considered the entire Western world as a part of the Roman oikoumene of which the Byzantine emperor was the head and in which the Roman bishop was allowed to enjoy honorary primacy. On the other hand, the Frankish and German emperors in Europe were challenging this nominal scheme, and the internal decadence of the Roman papacy was such that the powerful patriarch of Byzantium seldom took the trouble of entertaining any relations with it.
The struggle for power within the Roman church was such that some Christians began to be forced to choose either to yield their integrity and accept the papal ceremonies and worship, or to waste away their lives in dungeons or suffer death by the rack, the fagot, or the headsman’s ax. Persecution opened with greater fury than ever before, and the world became a vast battlefield. For hundreds of years “heretical†Christians only found refuge in seclusion and obscurity.
Is that all “made upâ€, or does that reflect church history as it presents itself to us today? Mark the fact that the Reformation was a long way off in the sixth century. This is a large part of the road to the church of today in whatever denominations we may be in. It would be completely ignorant to blend it out. The notion of something “made up†with regard to exegesis of scripture is just as ignorant and insulting.
This actually insults your intelligence, let alone mine.
I’d say that to rescue what is good from any organized religion, any book, one must to an extent re-invent it for each new generation. Culturally the world is moving faster than ever, and to ‘sell’ christian/Muslm/whatever moral values to the internet generation, one must speak in their terms.
You could point out that bible stories would perhaps lose much of their venerable authority when removed from their ancient context, and perhaps they may… “Loaves and fishes” to “Burgers and chip-butties” but the essential beauty and simplicity of some of the lessons should shine through however you contextualize the message.
We need a bible for our time, and new prophets to teach it.
Stop being so defensive. I don’t bite.