Joan Chittester

[FredP]

It's important that the Bible says to "submit ourselves."  No one forces me to submit...I prayerfully put myself under submission.  (after much investigation!!!)  There is also a HUGE responsibility for those in authority.  They will give an account to God for the souls under their care, for one.  And they need to lead as Jesus did...by serving and washing feet.  Not to lord their authority over the people, but to love them, serve them, encourage and exhort them.

Whew, I thought you said, extort them! Need to get these glasses checked out.... Heh.

 

Anyway... If I might don the "new spirituality" hat for the purposes of being a Devil's Advocate -- for Aletheia of course! -- I might say that the ultimate goal of all external forms of submission is to cultivate the inward submission of the ego to the will of Christ the True Self. The external form is never an end in itself, but a training ground and illustration, at best, of this ego submission. If that sounds fluffy and new agey, what I'm talking about is literally the death of the false self -- a far more difficult path of renunciation than the mere transference of authority to another person. It seems to me that all forms of religious authority ultimately boil down to this -- you're either practicing transference, or you're practicing transcendence. The choice is yours.

[AletheiaRivers]

Alethia, realizing my many references to scripture, I guess I stand guilty of "bibliolatry."

 

I would never have said that from any of your posts. I wouldn't say that everyone that quotes scripture is a "bibliolator."

 

If someone thinks that Jesus basically told the thief on the cross to "Just figure out the correct interpretations to all the scriptures that haven't been written down yet (and which I never commanded anyone to do) and join the correct denomination, THEN you'll be with me in paradise" - I would say that person is a bibliolator. (I know no-one really says that, but you get the idea. It is a mindset that exists, especially in fundamentalist and evangelical circles (although it seems to be changing a bit in the later)).

[flowperson]

It is my belief that the dichotomy between what is spiritual and what is religiosity has mostly to do with the "E" word, "emotion". We, as humans, are most moved to believe what moves us emotionally. Jesus asserted that belief was the most important aspect of His teachings.

 

When belief is institutionalized and boxed into an authoritarian structure, the power of the message to move us emotionally to belief is naturally truncated by the institutional attributes and structures themselves. I believe that there is no escaping this conundrum.

 

However, we all hungrily seek "personal" relationships with those people and things that move us emotionally. This seems to be universally true whether we are speaking of G-d, Jesus, our friends, our mates, our children, etc. This might also be termed "good chemistry". Or perhaps this should be termed to be the " longing syndrome " that seems to be at the root of all truly emotionally-based relationships.

 

But it seems unlikely that many of us are able to bring that same emotional fervency to bear when it comes to forming long-term, belief-based connections to our churches, communities, alma maters, political parties, nations, etc. These connections usually end-up being associations based mainly upon logic-oriented choice systems and not emotional attachments. Since these entities are really administrative constructs formed in order to package our general and collective beliefs, they operate to dilute the emotional content of their foundational concepts through the interpersonal compromises that are necessary to keep such organizations intact and moving forward. My sole exception to note here would be memberships in musical organizations whose existence is tied to individual and collective rehearsal and performance. This is because music is an inherently emotional experience for most people.

 

I can say that I have been both richly rewarded through personal spiritual relationships, but also badly emotionally crushed by them. But I have been disappointed to a greater degree by relationships with entities that purported to collectivize shared beliefs because of the deceit and political intrigue necessary for them to exist and continue.

 

But then human existence has been that way for a long time, probably since the "apple" was eaten, and I do not think it will all change anytime soon. What we should view this dichotomy as is a spectrum of belief-based satisfaction. We may join ourselves with associations of believers through the exercise of our free will, and to the extent such associations fulfill an adequate degree of our emotional needs, we may choose to continue our participation. But we live in a universe of change and subsequent choice. So most of us are free to pursue our dreams and needs as necessity warrants.

 

flow....

[jerryb]

That's just it, from the conservative/traditional Catholic perspective, the Catholic Church is not man-made, but definitively initiated by Jesus Christ, and perfectly guided into its present form by the Holy Spirit.  This is not incidental to the disagreement: it is the disagreement.  Without understanding this, any discussion concerning personal preferences about spirituality, what "works" and what doesn't for whom, etc., is ultimately beside the point.

 

Having said that, I believe that this claim to unique initiation and guidance status for Catholic Christianity in particular is notoriously circular, and falls quite short of James' desire to maintain a notion of Truth, and of "the ability of humans to know and to some degree prove it."  The Catholic Church's ecclesiology of apostolic succession, for example, is based primarily on an idiosyncratic reading of a word-play in the gospels -- "You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church..." -- a very convenient interpretation which (any Catholic will admit) no other church in the world recognizes.  In fact, the New Testament, ounce for ounce, seems to paint St. Paul in the clear position of leadership, both doctrinally and pastorally.  Of course, Rome can always haul out its arsenal of proof texts, as it always does; but it remains highly curious to me how its own claims to unique authority in the spiritual landscape are based on interpretations of texts and traditions that even other Christian churches don't share.  We're far from the realm of clear and demonstrable Truth here, even if we're taking the Bible literally and/or seriously.

 

Incidentally, I was received into the Catholic Church as an adult too, in 1999, when I was not much older than James.  I know all the arguments for the primacy of Peter, the role of Mary, and everything else.  But I just couldn't continue to hold onto such a vicious circularity as the Catholic defense of its own authority structure.  It has nothing to do with a modern criticism of Truth or Authority per se, but with these particular, idiosyncratic, and circular claims to them.  Who gets to say that the integration of the gospel with Greek philosophy was God's will, but the integration of it with eastern philosophy is syncretistic?  Only whichever Pope or council authorized the synthesis, apparently.

 

As for the spirituality movement being "dangerous to humanity because it recasts us in the role of the playthings of the gods from pagan times," well, I've already conceded elsewhere that there's enough New Age quackery out there to constitute a spiritual danger to humanity.  When Sylvia Browne is on the same shelf as Ken Wilber, "metaphysics" and "spirituality" cease to have much substantial public meaning in the marketplace.  But I'm being just as critical of the "mass-membership mentality" of New Ageism as that of conventional religion.  Spirituality doesn't necessarily mean leaving religion behind, and this is where my initial comment about pinning the terms down with finality comes back around.  Religion does give people some of the best spiritual resources you can find, if only most people would bother to drop the power and authority fixation and actually look for them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Fred....How can you say that the Catholic Church is not man-made?

And if you believe that it was "perfectly guided"into it's present form, you must

believe that the bible is literally true and infallable.

Of course you have a perfect right to believe that,but from reading some of your other posts, I wouldn't take you for a literalist.

I wonder if you've read the book,"THe Dark Side Of Christianity"? It was a real eye-opener for me.

Looking forward to your further thoughts.

 

 

 

Jerryb

[FredP]

Fred....How can you say that the Catholic Church is not man-made?

And if you believe that it was "perfectly guided"into it's present form, you must

believe that the bible is literally true and infallable.

What I said was:

... from the conservative/traditional Catholic perspective, the Catholic Church is not man-made, but definitively initiated by Jesus Christ, and perfectly guided into its present form by the Holy Spirit.

I then proceeded to argue that it doesn't hold up.

[des]

Wow, this is a great post and very thoughtful.

Fred, Fred, "extort" ;-) :-)

 

--des

 

 

Alethia, realizing my many references to scripture, I guess I stand guilty of "bibliolatry."

 

This might be off point, but much of this deals with the question of AUTHORITY, I believe. 

 

Many Christians have run from "authority" over the years....and sometimes rightly so,  as the authority was terrible and evil.  But I was reminded recently by a book that God did not expect the church (universal) to be a democracy, but a kingdom, with Jesus at the head.  We are equal as believers, but God does put certain people in authority. As a protestant, I certainly believe in the "priesthood of the believer."  But it is also clear in the Bible that there is structure, and, yes, authority, in the church.  And those of us in the church (all believers) are to submit ourselves to the authority. 

 

It's important that the Bible says to "submit ourselves."  No one forces me to submit...I prayerfully put myself under submission.  (after much investigation!!!)  There is also a HUGE responsibility for those in authority.  They will give an account to God for the souls under their care, for one.  And they need to lead as Jesus did...by serving and washing feet.  Not to lord their authority over the people, but to love them, serve them, encourage and exhort them.

 

This is probably one of the toughest things for a Christian (especially one who has been burned by church in the past) to do.  But, in the end, I don't think God wanted us functioning as "spiritual lone rangers."  Just my .02.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[FredP]

Many Christians have run from "authority" over the years....and sometimes rightly so,  as the authority was terrible and evil.  But I was reminded recently by a book that God did not expect the church (universal) to be a democracy, but a kingdom, with Jesus at the head.  We are equal as believers, but God does put certain people in authority.

Well, it's incorrect to identify the Church with the Kingdom of God. The Church is the universal community of Christians; the Kingdom is the New Creation that God is making out of all things. The Kingdom is the primary reality; the Church exists only to bear witness to it, and to prepare people to live in it and serve it. Christ's headship in the Kingdom doesn't imply anything about the authority structure of the Church.

 

This is probably one of the toughest things for a Christian (especially one who has been burned by church in the past) to do.  But, in the end, I don't think God wanted us functioning as "spiritual lone rangers."

There are people who have been burned by church in the past, that's for sure. But I don't think that's the only factor in being suspicious of political forms of church authority.

 

Let me put it this way: do you suppose the Kingdom of God has anything to do with a political structure of who obeys whom in the cosmic (or earthly) pecking order? The Kingdom of God is present whenever and wherever Christ the Eternal Word shines through from the true center of our being like a flame, refining us and setting our desires aright. This is the spiritual headship of Christ, the kingdom of heaven within you.

 

I don't see that isn't being a "spiritual lone ranger." Quite the opposite actually: it's the transcendence of our identification with our little separate selves, the cacophony of voices within -- and the embrace of Christ our true center, who is the true center of all things, the ground of genuine unity with one another. Clearly we recognize that others on our path have a deeper degree of undertanding and mastery over their "kingdoms," so to speak, and so we look to them for guidance. And obviously, we humbly recognize when we have the opportunity to provide guidance to others as well. If that's what you mean by spiritual authority, then I'm all for it. But systems of leadership, by design, are purely functional, and always subject to revision. The goal is transformation -- the emergence of the kingdom within, and the removal of systems of domination, including spiritual domination, so that the kingdom can freely emerge in others, and throughout the world.

[darby]

Fred-

 

Christ's headship in the Kingdom doesn't imply anything about the authority structure of the Church

 

Christ said He would build His church (Matt 16). He is the head of the church (Eph 5:23).

 

Paul, in the pastoral episltes to Timothy and Titus, told them to appoint elders (overseers, bishops) in the church. The writer of Hebrews tells the believers "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give an account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you."

 

It just seems very scriptual for there to be authority in the church. I certainly agree that the church is not the end....fwllowship with God through Jesus is. But the church is an important tool, which serves a valuable purpose (when functioning properly).

 

While there has been much abuse by authority, I think the main purpose for that authority is for care, concern and shepherding of the body. Domination is a sign of poor authority...not that authority is wrong.

[FredP]

Christ said He would build His church (Matt 16).  He is the head of the church (Eph 5:23).

Of course!

 

Paul, in the pastoral episltes to Timothy and Titus, told them to appoint elders (overseers, bishops) in the church.  ...

 

It just seems very scriptual for there to be authority in the church.

It seems very practical for there to be authority in the church. But even allowing for different opinions about authorship of the pastoral epistles, I would still read these letters as giving practical situational advice, not as saying the church in its institutional dimension must organize itself in this way. I think these structures are amenable to revision or even complete overhaul -- especially as concerns the extent of the power of spiritual leadership within the church -- as the social, political, spiritual, etc. needs of humanity change over time.

 

Of course, there are just some hard limits to how much we'll probably agree on this, given our somewhat different ways of reading scripture. But we already knew that.

[des]

Funny thing, I'm finding that I'm agreeing with both of you. I tend, for instance, to see the phrase of Jesus saying "upon this rock I will build my church..." as a prob. not said by Jesus but stuck in later by folks with vested interest in showing that the church's authority comes from Jesus. (Perhaps I am making this sound more cynical than it is-- I'm more implying a reason that might be somewhat apart from Jesus saying it.) And I definitely agree with Fred, re: how we are going to see the scriptures rather differently.

 

OTOH, being in a church with all the political and other not so holy things that go on in church's-- even one as non-hierarchical as UCC, well I don't see such political things as having much to do with the kingdom of God. But I do see that membership in such a community-- and there are such great things re: of a community of faith-- that I think being without a community that you are missing something. So talk about contradictions!

 

Perhaps what I am saying is that the institutional structure of a church tends to waylay the spiritual purposes to some extent, and in some ways it is an important extent.

But the coming together in a community of faith has some more basic thing to it that is not really institutional but communal and spiritual-- if such a thing happens.

 

Am I making sense? :-)

 

--des

[FredP]

I tend, for instance, to see the phrase of Jesus saying "upon this rock I will build my church..." as a prob. not said by Jesus but stuck in later by folks with vested interest in showing that the church's authority comes from Jesus.

One doesn't even need to suppose that there was foul play going on here. Peter's de facto leadership in the early Christian community was already well underway when the gospels were written. He no doubt believed and taught that any spiritual authority he may have had in the community could only be grounded in Christ, and not in himself. It's easy enough to see the story as an illustration of this fact, if you don't have a vested interest in reading it as the establishment of a new order of priests.

 

But the coming together in a community of faith has some more basic thing to it that is not really institutional but communal and spiritual-- if such a thing happens.

Any group of people who intend to do anything beyond sit there and stare at their feet are going to have an institutional dimension to their existence. The idea Aletheia posted from another discussion board, of religion allowing spiritual ideas to "gain traction in history," really struck me as being exactly right. It emphasizes that we're talking about functionality -- what makes spiritual wisdom "stick" to humanity long enough for it to gain traction. It also emphasizes its situational nature -- when the texture of the mud changes, you have redesign the tires. Some, perhaps, can learn to navigate the mud without them. Maybe that's the eventual goal for all of us.

 

As yet, I'd say humanity is far from being able to navigate the terrain of spirituality without religion, and by extension, authority and leadership. But Jesus probably express the goal of leadership best: everyone, when he has completed his training, will be like his teacher.

[AletheiaRivers]

The idea Aletheia posted from another discussion board, of religion allowing spiritual ideas to "gain traction in history," really struck me as being exactly right.

 

The quotes I posted were actually from a series of letters between Huston Smith and another author about Religion versus Spirituality. Smith has always been supportive of the importance of religion and religious organizations in mankind's spiritual journey. I find him quite balanced.

 

It's refreshing to see someone who isn't super conservative standing up for the role of religion in mankinds lives. There is too much knee-jerking going on (but I myself did it and can totally empathize).

[des]

I did not mean to imply that whoever put the words in Jesus' mouth about "upon this rock I will build my church" had cynical ends. Or this was somehow foul play of some sort. I was only suggesting that they were perhaps trying to ground the church in something higher and more meaningful than a bunch of by laws. By attaching themselves to that line they end up attaching themselves to the rest of Jesus' message as well. So it would not be a bad thing.

 

Well certainly any group will have some institutional element, I am not denying that. What I meant to say is that something ELSE goes on as well-- and that transcends institution!!

 

 

--des

[FredP]

Des,

 

I'm sorry that you seem to have read things into my comments that I didn't say. On the "foul play" thing: I said one doesn't even need to suppose there was foul play involved, to go along with the more compositional view of the gospels that you and I both agree is a more accurate view of how they got here. I was trying to emphasize for our more conservative brothers and sisters that skepticism about the motives of early Christianity isn't a prerequisite to embracing a more "progressive" reading of the gospels. I think a lot of the reason why conservatives take shots at progressive Christianity is that PC has a bad habit of always retrojecting sinister motives back onto the early church. I wasn't saying that you personally were arguing for foul play, just taking your comment as a jumping off point.

 

On the "institution" thing: once again, I was taking your comment as a jumping off point to say that the institutional and communal dimension of spirituality is necessary to ground it in history, and "real life."

 

We're on the same page here!

 

Fred

[des]

Fred, an excellent point. I think sometimes when we say that some Bible writer had a reason for writing something, we are basically saying that someone put words in Jesus' mouth. I would think that that all by itself would be hard to take, esp if you feel the Bible is the word of God (esp the inerrant word). I do not personally think that there is necessarily usually a sinister reason, but I think anytime you take it as not the words of Jesus, it wouldn't matter if we said they were put there sinisterly or not. And yes, I do think there is a tendency to ascribe more sinister reasons. I think we know how institutions work. Was some comment self-serving, or something else?

 

I agree with your other comment too. I was just adding to it.

If you don't have the institutional element nothing else happens.

 

Also explains nicely how the ancient church NEEDED to justify itself in someway. IF the ancient church hadn't justified itself, we wouldn't be having these neat conversations!

 

 

--des

[darby]

Of course, there are just some hard limits to how much we'll probably agree on this, given our somewhat different ways of reading scripture. But we already knew that. 

 

Fred, I think you've summed up perhaps THE dividing point between progressives and those more conservative. There are many times on this board where I'm following a discussion, commenting, and then I get to a point where I realize the debate can't really go any further. It would serve no purpose, because we're debating from different perspectives.

 

The old saw about "where you go to find your answer determines what answer you come up with" (I'm paraphrasing) is absolutely true, I believe.

[AletheiaRivers]

I appreciate it so much when you enter a discussion Darby. I like seeing both sides to a position. I usually find myself agreeing with BOTH because the points of view, imo, are not opposites, but complementary.

 

So here's to hoping that you find yourself moved to join in more conversations (raises coffee cup and offers a toast). (I just woke up.)

[darby]

So here's to hoping that you find yourself moved to join in more conversations (raises coffee cup and offers a toast). (I just woke up.)

 

 

At 9:20!!!! You're letting half the day pass you by, Alethia! Of course, perhaps you're up at 1 or 2 in the morning, when I'm hitting REM. And thanks so much for the kind words.

 

 

As time permits, and as I have something to offer, I try to jump in. At least when you guys don't get over my head.

[AletheiaRivers]

At 9:20!!!! You're letting half the day pass you by, Alethia!

 

I WISH! It was 7:30 here in Mormonstown when I posted, and that was sleeping in (way in).

 

And thanks so much for the kind words.

 

You are welcome and I hope you know that I mean it.

[FredP]

There are many times on this board where I'm following a discussion, commenting, and then I get to a point where I realize the debate can't really go any further.  It would serve no purpose, because we're debating from different perspectives.

I definitely respect how frustrating that can be, especially being the "minority report." I appreciate that you continue to come back anyway. Putting myself in your shoes, I'm not sure how long I'd put myself through it!

 

On a side note, I do appreciate the challenge that you and our other more conservative brothers and sisters put on us to take the Bible's message with utmost seriousness. I agree that some progressive Christians do twist scripture and history to make it say just about anything they like -- indeed, many out there would accuse me of precisely that. Personally, I do everything in my power -- with the help of the Spirit, I trust -- to not let my interpretation of scripture be driven by what I like, or what I want, but by what in all earnestness I believe it communicates to us.

 

Some of what I believe the gospel to be about, truth be told, I really don't like or want that much at all, at least a whole lot of me doesn't. It calls me to such a degree of examination, purification, and transformation -- both of myself and of the world around me -- that the current state of my heart is embarrassing by contrast. In the biblical story of the passion, for example, I see an allegory of the path I must take to the Cross, to renounce my limited self, by God's grace, and all the battles that entails. None of this particularly excites me! But I believe it, and stand by it.

 

Hopefully this is still somewhat on-topic.

[jerryb]

There are many times on this board where I'm following a discussion, commenting, and then I get to a point where I realize the debate can't really go any further.  It would serve no purpose, because we're debating from different perspectives.

I definitely respect how frustrating that can be, especially being the "minority report." I appreciate that you continue to come back anyway. Putting myself in your shoes, I'm not sure how long I'd put myself through it!

 

On a side note, I do appreciate the challenge that you and our other more conservative brothers and sisters put on us to take the Bible's message with utmost seriousness. I agree that some progressive Christians do twist scripture and history to make it say just about anything they like -- indeed, many out there would accuse me of precisely that. Personally, I do everything in my power -- with the help of the Spirit, I trust -- to not let my interpretation of scripture be driven by what I like, or what I want, but by what in all earnestness I believe it communicates to us.

 

Some of what I believe the gospel to be about, truth be told, I really don't like or want that much at all, at least a whole lot of me doesn't. It calls me to such a degree of examination, purification, and transformation -- both of myself and of the world around me -- that the current state of my heart is embarrassing by contrast. In the biblical story of the passion, for example, I see an allegory of the path I must take to the Cross, to renounce my limited self, by God's grace, and all the battles that entails. None of this particularly excites me! But I believe it, and stand by it.

 

Hopefully this is still somewhat on-topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fred.....I was deeply moved by your post today.

Especially the part where you said"the gospel......calls me to such a degree of examination,purification, and transformation...that the current state of my heart is embarrassing by contrast".

I share your feelings in this respect....and the phrase 'the CURRENT state of my heart', ah...there's the rub....what exactly IS the current state of my heart?

Sometimes I feel like old King Belshazzar in the old testament.."Weighed in the balance,and found wanting".

Thank you for bringing us back to keeping 'the Main thing..the main thing.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerryb

[darby]

Some of what I believe the gospel to be about, truth be told, I really don't like or want that much at all, at least a whole lot of me doesn't. It calls me to such a degree of examination, purification, and transformation -- both of myself and of the world around me -- that the current state of my heart is embarrassing by contrast. In the biblical story of the passion, for example, I see an allegory of the path I must take to the Cross, to renounce my limited self, by God's grace, and all the battles that entails. None of this particularly excites me! But I believe it, and stand by it.

 

Hopefully this is still somewhat on-topic

 

On that, Fred, I hope we can ALL find agreement! This is a major contrast to what we hear in the world. There we hear "get all you can," "You're wonderful," "Do it if it feels good to you," "You just need to love yourself more," etc. I don't think what we all need is MORE self-love, but less. Or perhaps just more love and concern for others way above ourselves. Not that we need to hate ourselves...but to truly see where we fall short of the standard set by a Holy God.

 

It's for that reason I've always been impressed with David in the Bible. Obviously a very flawed man...constantly struggling with lust, committing murder, etc. And yet, it is evident that he was DEEPLY repentant over his sin, crying out to God and thanking God for his mercy. He (much like you, above) truly understood his position in view of a Holy God. The bible says that God has yet to deny a broken heart and a contrite spirit. I guess David's humility and brokenness is why the bible says he was a man after God's heart.

 

And man, it IS a battle sometimes, isn't it?!

[FredP]

I don't think what we all need is MORE self-love, but less.  Or perhaps just more love and concern for others way above ourselves.

As long as what you mean by "self" is the ego and its attachments, desires, and sense of competition and domination over others, then you're absolutely right -- we need a whole lot less of that. But we have been invited into a New Self, which is Christ in us. To love this Self is to nurture God's great gift of life in us and everything around us, to transcend the boundary between "self" and "other," and to live out of the boundless compassion that comes from the depths of God's infinite love for us. These two meanings of "self-love" could hardly be more different!

 

The bible says that God has yet to deny a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Indeed!

[flowperson]

Yes Fred.

Some time ago on another thread I observed that one could not love others until they had learned to love one's self.

Thank you for clarifying the spiritual message that I intended to convey but was not able to in that interpretation.

 

flow....