cunninglily

Very interesting insights that accord with many of my own thoughts. The color "grey" in the Western Mysteries is the color of "Wisdom"...the blending of "black" and "white". You say that you have just become a "Christian". I am curious. What influences preceded this event? What have you studied prior to embracing the Christian Mythos? What you have written here resonates with Jungian thinking, Christian Hermeticism and Kabbalah; traditions or models that have influenced my own thinking quite a bit. Have you studied any of these yourself? lily

Thanks Aletheia...that was helpful. The definition of "privatio boni" sounds much like, or seems to amount to, what I said, which is that there is no "structural evil" or "structural good", but a single Force, 'Energy or Power that surges through all that is that is neither Good nor Evil, but transcends these dualistic categories and is beyond what we can think or know from a dualistic perspective. The difference is that I am suggesting that "Good" and "Evil" are dualistic perspectives of the same essential Impulse or Force, while the theory of "privatio boni" seems to assume a Reality or Force which is "Good" and "Evil" as an illusion caused by lack of "Good" or diminished "Good". Perhaps the important point in agreement, in the context of this particular discussion, is that we are establishing in both that God is not the creator of Evil and that Evil is not a part of the nature of God. Still, this doesn't get us very far in resolving the problem of the existence of what we call evil in the world. It is my understanding (which I consider limited and still sketchy) that all of the instincts, impulses, and forces operating in man and in the whole of creation are not in and of themselves either good or evil...in other words, any instinct or impulse can be directed toward the "good" or toward the "evil", but the instinct or impulse in and of itself is neither. Thus *anger* as an instinctual emotion can be used for the good or for the evil, depending on the conscious awareness of the one directing this instinct, but there is no judgement against *anger* itself as either good or evil. Therefore there is no evil act of which anyone is capable that arises apart from the instincts and impulses we all share and therefore there is no good of which anyone is capable that arises apart from the instincts and impulses we all share. "Good" and "Evil" then are flip sides of the same coin, or two "poles" between which the One Life mediates the "Truth", which essentially transcends these divisions and unites them as One. lily

Think about the *powers* or forces that flow through your own body/mind. Think of your sexuality or the powers of your libido. Are these powers in and of themselves good or evil? Most of us will have to admit that a tension exists between the two poles of "good and evil" by which we negotiate or equilibriate our libidic powers. The power in itself is neither "good" nor "evil"; the power can operate either as a force for good or as a force for evil, but the force or power surges or flows according to the way open to it, without discrimination. To use specifically Christian language now, this place of tension, or mediation, or equilibriation is empowered by Christ in you and brought to a place of masterful Equilibrium. In this Way the forces (which originate at the Source where the duality of Good and Evil do not exist), that flow and surge and swarm within you, are transformed and a "third" way; a Way beyond the knowledge of good and evil opens. ...just food for thought lily

I can think of at least one other understanding out there and that would be the concept of Fate and the Web of Wyrd which is subtle and complex at once but which negates a personal, separate, "free" will at all. (This is nothing like automation or robotics Aletheia, so relax, but it is a bit of a mind bender.) In this way of thinking, and I'm no expert, nothing happens independently of anything else, everything is trembling in response to everything that is, here and now, right now. This is actually not a modern concept though, it is ancient and pre-Christian, but from a modern perspective the Western Mystery Traditions teach that there is only One Will...that we are each Lights powered by a common Source, much like the way your light in your house has the same source as the light in your neighbors house and the light in his neighbors house and etc. There is none or nothing separate from this Source or that has its being apart from It. The light shines or dims according to the density of matter, or as Paul would say, the density of the carnal mind, which is enmity to God, or to the Light Source. It's nothing personal mind...its a principle...the more matter the less light; the more ego the less Self and so on... This is a contradiction. How can a will be free if evil must be present in the heart already for an evil choice to be made? Where is the choice in that? Where did the evil in the heart originate? And how can a will that is free be anything but the cause, for if it is not the cause of its own actions then it is not free, for something outside causes the "availability" of choice, which is no choice at all. quote=AletheiaRivers,May 26 2005, 11:11 AM]-2 apples added to 2 apples = no apples (0, NEUTRALITY). And here is where I'd like to throw a (another?) wrench into the discussion. Does good EXIST any more than evil does? What if the universe and God are "neutral"? Isn't that what you get with thesis/antithesis, Christ/Lucifer, matter/antimatter? A THIRD option? You may benefit from looking at the glyph of the Tree of Life as the structural pattern or paradigm of this triad and the "third" thing. The Tree is built of ten sephira or spheres, which "hang" on three "poles", the middle pillar or pole is the mediating pole of the other two. One pillar is called the Pillar of Mercy, is masculine in principle and the other is called the Pillar of Severity, and is feminine in principle; the third pillar is called the Middle Pillar or the Pillar of Equilibrium. At its center stands the sphere of Tipareth, which is the sphere of the Son. This sphere mediates both between the two other pillars, and between the lower sephiroth from the higher, which is separated by what is called "The Abyss". In simple terms the lower numbers attributed to these ten, starting at ten, is where "matter" or "manifestation" is densest. The tenth sephira, btw, is called Malkuth or The Kingdom. Maybe because it doesn't make sense that Evil and Non-Being are synonymous. Good and Evil are dualistic categories of Being that can not exist in Non-Being because Non-Being must transcend or be outside dualistic concepts such as good and evil. Evil must necessarily be just as much an aspect of Being as Good is or both terms are meaningless, as has already been pointed out. Evil in my mind is misuse and misunderstanding of a principle which "though men in their ignorance take for evil, God intends for the good", in other words, one could say that there is no Evil only evil. Structurally evil doesn't exist. What we call evil is empowered by the same source as is what we call good. The source is neither good or evil, it just is; neutral if you will. But this is getting involved and my famdamly is getting hungry.... ...later, lily

You've never offended me. frustrate? well, yeah, but that's only because I'm bursting at the seams with things to say that I feel ill-equipped to say...and the "devils advocate" thing? I do that too. I'm thrilled to have your company Fred...and am very excited about some of the ideas we are tossing... lily

But "privatio boni" seems to contradict everything you've suggested concerning the nature of Being. How can what is not exist? And if it exists how can it exist apart from Being? As Parmenides said, "For what exists for thinking, and being, are one and the same." In other words, if you can think about Evil then it must exist for thinking and can therefore not not exist, otherwise to think of Evil we would have to share this "privation of being", otherwise Non-existence is unrecognizable, unmentionable, and unthinkable. (and I'm not stating unequivocally that we do not partake of "privation of being" I am only suggesting that a duality of Being and Non-Being contradicts the statement made earlier that "God becomes God by way of God"...unless I'm missing something. So Fred, please elaborate on what you mean by "God becomes God by way of God". lily at any rate, this seems to be getting too far away from what we've only just begun in this discussion...and here I was thinking it too soon to bring up questions concerning free will...lol...

I've read and re-read this post starting late last night and keep stumbling over words in an effort to respond. I understand that I keep approaching this topic from the God-Relationship angle, because it is my premise that we can not understand who or what God is, or who and what Jesus is, if we do not know who and what we are. I also understand that saying that "God and Man meet in Christ" is only a way to understand the "dynamic process" without necessarily explaining "the whole structure" in which, and through which, the "dynamic process" takes place...(unless, of course, the "dynamic process" is "the whole structure" which may be what we are getting to) Michael, my partner, asked, "What did a Roman wear to a toga party? (toga's btw, were a sacred garment, and therefore NOT to be worn to a party) The answer: a synthesis. The synthesis consisted of a chiton or tunic and a himation or wrap. So a synthesis is a combining of two distinct garments to make a third distinct garment. Neither the chiton or the himation existed apart from Being because nothing that is not can exist and all that exists is Being. So, the synthesis is no more Being than the chiton or himation and yet each is a distinct *thing* with integrity apart from the other two. But when you combine the two, the chiton and himation, you no longer have two distinct and separate garments, but a third garment that is both chiton and himation and yet neither. A new, distinct garment, the synthesis, is created. So, when I speak of a third creation, I am not talking about something that exists apart from all that is; in fact, I am talking about something no more mysterious as what happens when a man and a woman combine or unite to create a third thing: a baby...but then, of course, this is really quite a mysterious thing in and of itself. So, yes, I am speaking of a "new creation" resulting from a synthesis of thesis and antithesis...something not purely "chiton" or purely "himation" but something altogether new: a synthesis. and right now, because the language makes me feel a bit insecure that my thoughts are relevant, I'm not even sure if I am commenting meaningfully or if I am saying the same thing I said before over again. I am hoping that Fred will expand on his "God becomes God by way of God" because I don't want to assume that I know what he means by this...although I feel that I do. lily

hi des and aletheia...I took a peek inside this book at Amazon...looks like a worthwhile read. so many books; so little time. let us know how you like it des. lily

Hi John. I am interested to know what in the "deconstruction" process you found "seemingly incongruent with the self-proclaimed inclusivity of progressive Christianity". You suggest that the replacing of one set of rules etc with "newer" or more "modern" rules etc. is somehow incongruent with inclusivity. How would you define an inclusive Christianity? Are you suggesting that an inclusive Progressive Christianity would be without "rules, traditions and code words"? If so, how do you define or distinguish a Christian tradition as distinct from other traditions? I'm working to understand what people mean by the word "inclusive". I find social inclusivity pretty straight forward, but I'm getting stumped on what you guys mean by doctrinal inclusivity. How do we envision a distinct Christian tradition that is also inclusive of other traditions? How would this flesh out? lily

I see what you are saying Aletheia, but what I am thinking is a bit different. It's not so much that man becomes God or God becomes man, but that the *meeting* of the two produces a *third* becoming. Just as individuals receive characteristics of both parents and yet can not be said to be the parents and are distinct from them, so too does the meeting or union of God and man create Offspring or Sons who are of both natures and yet can not be said to be very God or merely man, but a synthesis or union of the two. We may be saying the same thing really, but I want to emphasis that I don't believe that man becomes God or that God became man, but that God and Man met in Christ (or the Self) and a "new creation" or the Sons of God, are the result. This "new creation" mediates between heaven and earth; mediates the Divine Will through to manifestation. ...much more could be said, but i'm getting bleary-eyed. See you all tomorrow. lily

[ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...and you really need to read Peter Kingsley's "Reality". What is the "classical view"? and how would you state it in terms of "philosophy of mind/cognitive science? and I know that the matter is much more complex than a rivalry between two competing Christological theories. I know. I have a more vague knowledge of these "complexities" because I am not a formal scholar...and what I mean by "vague" is that I follow my nose and not a course outline...so, I know to look at ancient Greece and Hellenized Greek philosophical forms in order to better understand what it may have meant for a mortal man to become immortal...but I don't always know where to look or how to begin...if you can imagine this problem. The reason that I take the time to offer this *apology* is so that you, Fred, will understand that while I usually know what you are talking about...I don't always understand the language you are using to say it and so can not respond in kind. And the Jung essays? I probably would benefit from reading Jung again. Twenty years ago (has it been that long already?) I was an avid reader of everything "Jungian" and there is no doubt that his influence is still present in my thoughts...but I am largely unconscious of them now and seldom make direct reference to Jungian thought anymore. Problem is I haven't even caught up with the "Progressive" Christian reading list. I've not read Crossan, or Borg, or Wright or any of these guys. In fact, I've read very few specifically Christian books in the last several years. Most of my reading, to be blunt, has been on the Western Mysteries and the occult during the last ten years...much of it Kabbalah and Tarot focused. During the last two I spent a great deal of time studying various Pagan Reconstructions. All of these influences swarm and swirl within my head. At any rate, as I've said before, all of these influences only served to root me more firmly within a Christian "orientation". It's amazing that we can talk at all, isn't it? or is it? lily

This is the very struggle that fueled the first 400 years of Christian thought. It's rare for a modern person to feel it so intensely. Modernity often castigates early Christian theology for closing the book on this discussion, when in many ways it was orthodox theology that had the courage to insist on this paradox in the face of a laundry list of other more rational "solutions." Of course, "Progressive Christianity" as it stands, does fall into a noble tradition of questioning this claim. IMO, the question has yielded fruit, just as it did in earlier times, in the form of teasing apart various aspects of what the Divinity of Jesus Christ really entails. Does it entail that Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb by a divinely engineered superstrand of DNA? I'm inclined to say not. But a rejection of that needn't necessarily entail a rejection of Divinity: just a refinement of its meaning. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmm. This may be an over-simplification, but it is my understanding that the "struggle that fueled the first 400 years of Christian thought" was whether or not Jesus was "Very God" or not. There were those who claimed that Jesus was God Incarnate (and its my understanding that this was the orthodox position) and those who claimed that Jesus was a man who became one with God or divinized (and its my understanding that this became the heretical position), which is closer to what I (and of course many others) propose. But yes, you are right, this argument has been going on from the beginning. In a previous post I wrote: To me, the *Cross* as symbol, demonstrates the two "realities" intersecting, and reveals the *third* way which appears at this point. The vertical pole symbolizes our union with God, and the horizontal pole symbolizes our humanity and what occurs between the two, or where the two meet, IS the mystery. There is a principle called the Principle of Polarity which may help to explain what I mean by a "third way". The Principle of Polarity states that "anything in the universe can be understood, in magical terms, as an energy relationship between two opposed forces, resulting in a third, balanced force." The "two opposed forces" in this case would be "flesh and Spirit" or "heaven and earth" or "humanity and divinity". The *Cross* as symbol, as I mentioned previously, shows the "the two opposed forces" in tension which creates a third, balanced force, which we know as the Self, the Son, or the Christ. Hopefully that clarifies a bit what I am trying to say. There is much more to it all of course...but until we agree that in some way Jesus was both a son of man and a Son of God, and that this paradox is key to the message or goal or Word of God in Christ, there is no point in going much deeper in. lily

and Peacemover wrote: Yes, this is the stone I keep bruising myself upon too. On the one hand I find the *humanity* of Jesus key to understanding the transformational/mystical elements of the Christian tradition, while finding the understanding of the *Divinity* of Jesus as crucial to understanding the first. In other words, I favor a movement away from either Jesus was a "Jewish mystic" OR Jesus is the "Son of God" and a movement toward embracing both as true and realizing a *third* reality; a paradoxical reality created within the intersection of both. The Church appears to be stuck at this crossroads. Do we take the "Jesus is a Jewish mystic and therefore only a man" position or do we take the "Jesus is the Son of God and therefore very God" position? There seems to be great resistance to realizing both as equally true and equally vital to understanding the Christian tradition. The problem seems to hinge upon whether or not we believe that mortal man can become immortal and what that might mean. Personally, I can not find "a place to lay my head" within either a "Jesus is a Jewish mystic" or a "Jesus is God" Church. In my opinion, both of these positions are incomplete. It is in the two combined that a *third* way presents itself and puts to rest any debate regarding either the humanity of Jesus or the Divinity of Jesus. It is my conviction that Jesus was both man and divine. If you try and separate the two realities, the whole tradition falls apart, in my opinion. If Jesus was only a man, then the mystical/magical, transformational aspects of the tradition are lost and the emphasis is placed on "social activism and reform". If Jesus is God then the mystical/magical, transformational aspects of the tradition are also lost and the emphasis is placed on obedience and worship of God without any real hopes of becoming "like Him". To me, the *Cross* as symbol, demonstrates the two "realities" intersecting, and reveals the *third* way which appears at this point. The vertical pole symbolizes our union with God, and the horizontal pole symbolizes our humanity and what occurs between the two, or where the two meet, IS the mystery. I am concerned that the movement of Progressive Christianity seems to be away from the Divinity of Jesus Christ and toward Jesus the mystic, social reformer and holy man. I understand why this is happening but I can not support it. What I and others here are suggesting in seeing Jesus as both God and Man is difficult to teach because it is a mystery. It can only be experienced, not explained or made sensible to those whose minds are locked into an either/or mode of understanding. So, it is more expedient to choose between one or the other. But it is my heartfelt conviction that the vitality of the Christian tradition is found in not choosing between the two, but in holding the two realities in creative tension as One. lily

You bring up much grist for the discussion mill in this post. Thank you. I was struck by your observation that within Progressive Christianity...and perhaps beyond...there is a tendency to be stuck in *deconstruction* and slow in moving toward a reconstruction of the Christian Mythos. I think this is frustrating to many of us. Still, it may be inevitable and necessary; Christianity does have a lot to account for and there are many threads to be unraveled within it. My instinct is to tear it down to its essentials, which I keep saying but perhaps not clarifying adequately simply because I'm not sure that I can yet; rebuilding or reconstructing from the ground up, so to speak. It's not a process given to certainty or security and oftentimes results in a fatigue that is draining to faith, because it requires a good hard look at those things which shake the tradition to its very foundations. But I think its something many, many of us are being called to do, both individually, and in communities such as these. I also found your clarification on the word "fundamentalism" important. I'm frustrated by a marked tendency to lose the sense of words in the politics of identity. Words such as *inclusive* and *exclusive* are now being made into a self-identity label that sometimes misses the point of the word itself. Is Christianity as a tradition *inclusive*? What does this really mean? Does it mean that we dissolve all boundaries that discriminates one tradition from another? Does it mean that we relinquish what is distinctly Christian in our tradition in order to avoid alienating anyone? This has come up on a current thread here already regarding baptism and the eucharist. The abuses these traditions have spawned in some cases have made many antagonistic to any suggestion of "requirements" or "authority" or "structure" within the Church. Any effort to keep these traditions or a sense of order in the enactment of them is deemed "exclusivity". This tendency, it seems to me, makes *reconstruction* extremely problematic. How can you rebuild when the workers are still reacting against what has gone before and essentially locking us in at that very point? Tolerance toward the intolerant is another double-bind that comes up a lot. Personally, I'm not sure that we are to be endlessly tolerate of the intolerant, but again the words "tolerant" and "intolerant" have begun to morph into a strange definition. My hunch is that part of the problem here is that we are still holding to a belief that Christianity is intrinsically superior to other traditions and therefore we feel a moral obligation to make Christianity appealing to everyone. Give up this very deep-seated belief (I also suffer from it to a degree) and the *tolerance* problem is solved. Only then can we reconstruct a Christian tradition that has any definition at all. Once we stop trying to placate the world, if not run it, we can start reconstructing a tradition that is distinctly Christian and those who are called will come. At any rate, thanks for posting. Much food for thought here. lily

I miss the certainty too sometimes...I know what you mean Aletheia. I've been feeling a bit out of sorts about it all too. Perhaps deep things are being stirred in us by way of these discussions, maybe the heats been turned up a bit. I only know that I am glad that we are here and can say these things openly to one another. You are all a great help to me. lily

This is an important question. I've asked it of myself many times. Along with why, when there is so much in what passes for Christianity both now and throughout its history that is embarassing at best and appalling at worst in my eyes, and when its essential Truths can be found in other traditions that do not carry this baggage, do I stay stuck on Christianity like a barnacle to a Rock? In some vague way the first question can be answered by suggesting that the essential religious impulse knows of no other country. All of the longing of man has carried wisdom down through the ages and all converges upon the Christian Mythos. Christianity is not "tabula rasa", but a convergence of everything that came before, religiously, mystically, spiritually speaking, as well as politically, socially etc. etc. The importance of realizing this results in the awareness that all your longing and all its answering belongs to you as a human being, born of both woman and of Spirit, it doesn't belong to any one tradition. Truth, in other words, belongs to God; Religion belongs to man. The second question is a riddle to me. God in Christ is the God I know. I've had no encounter with other gods. Other traditions, if meaningful to me at all, always only enrich my understanding of and fascination with the Christian Mythos. It's my Fate. And yet a part of me recognizes that the tradition is so fragmented and so splintered and sectarian that it becomes harder and harder to embrace Christianity as a whole, or to know where ones' place is within it, at least for me. That is why I'm here. lily

It seems to me that you and I and some others are struggling to put the "outer" Church and the "inner" Church together into one whole, unitive and sacred Christian tradition...but, I keep thinking that the problem is that we keep seeing the "outer" Church, the Church of the Gate (see point 1) as the whole Church instead of the *gate* or "outer court" which is only the beginning of ones induction into the mysteries. In other words Fred, and to be blunt, there have always been those who want to say that the *gate* is the whole house. It isn't. It's only the gate. What is appropriate at the *gate* is different from what is appropriate in the house and what is appropriate in the house is no longer necessary in the secret chamber, or the holy of holies. Don't get me wrong. I agree wholeheartedly that "a robust Progressive Christianity can (needs to) maintain identifying theological markers", but it seems to me that currently Progressives are most concerned with "outer court" issues in which everyone is "invited" to come, and with the social implications of our Faith. The more mystical aspects of Christian tradition are not unified;each "Progressive" seems to have their own personal experience and preference here...and maybe that's inevitable. But it makes for a difficult and oft-times lonely road. I agree with the 8 points up to a point. I do not self-identify as a Progressive, in fact, at this point I self-identify as little as possible. I am drawn most strongly to a "Christian" orientation toward religious transformation. I am a Christian. Unfortunately, that can mean a zillion things to as many individuals, depending on their perspective or point of view. And, again unfortunately, I don't think self-identifying as a "Progressive Christian" goes very far in unifying the way we as Christians are perceived. Just look at all the different perspectives represented by the few of us who regularly post here. Who of us can say that we are representative "Progressive Christians"? lily

If I have its been too long ago. Where can I find it? I checked in "Aion" and "Alchemical Studies", both books I happen to have on hand and I don't see it. Do you know of an on-line source where the essay can be read in its entirety? lily

Hotdiggitydog Fred! That's it! The Eucharist, like any ritual, can be taken on many levels- on one very crucial level, the Eucharist acts as a “combining” sacrament, in which the otherworldly or heavenly forces, or the Father, and the human participants are united; this is its primary religious function, and another echo of the “marriage of Heaven and Earth” which can, by practise and Gods Grace, lead to the birth of the Child of Regeneration and Renewal, or the Christ Child, and this "Child" mediates regeneration and renewal to all of creation simply through Awareness of this great and deep truth. The participant of the Eucharist, if operating with understanding and Awareness of the significance of these truths, does indeed "literally put God and nature back together again." Amen and Amen. lily

Well put. I admire your ability to give voice to these subtlties Fred. I am aware of them but can not always articulate them. Thanks once again for providing clarity. lily

I've been searching my heart all weekend regarding this topic. It occurs to me that I am already living an inclusive, solitary, ever-evolving, unstructured, questioning, searching "Christian" life. The most influential book of my own spiritual life is not written by a Christian (Peter Kingsleys "Reality"). I attend no local church. As a consequence of years of this, I am now hungering for a "ground level", essential Christian practice; one stripped of hierarchy, literalism, superficial overlay, and any nonsense that suggests that Jesus did not open The Way to a personal, intimate, and basically individual relationship to the Father. But a church without structure, "requirements", goals, common rituals and praxis is what I'm ALREADY living and it does not satisfy. But this is where I am in my walk. I've spent the last 20 years of my "Christian" life flying solo...doing it "my way", walking "my own path", learning from many things, and where it has led me is to a hunger for a distinctly Christian walk that is nevertheless informed by all these other influences. There is a certain creativity in this, or a creative tension that is difficult to convey, but the liberty in it is only found within a certain structure. In other words, what inspires me now with new depth is the old and time-honored traditions and rites of our spiritual ancestors, which, in many ways includes pre-christian ones. The rite of Baptism, for instance, is known in many traditions and from time immemorial. It is as olde as the hills. This informs the rite with great depth imo. There is nothing "exclusive" about it, quite the contrary, this rite belongs to all of us, even those of us who are not Christian. But this does not by logical extension make the rite expendable to the experience to which it points. There is power and efficacy in rites done in Awareness. It is this, most of all, that I wish to convey here. I do think we should do as des suggested in a previous post, and explore on this thread the *meaning* of baptism; analyze it and take it apart and see what makes it tick. Baptism, for me, represents "dying" to an old way of life and being reborn into a new life in Christ. The immersion in water, or sprinkling, symbolizes returning to the amniotic or watery womb of the mother, and the rising up out of the water and taking that first gasp of air symbolizes the first breath you took when leaving your mothers womb. It is a re-birth experience. It is no longer you who live, but Christ that lives in you at this point. This is the outward expression of a deep truth that, in my opinion, is "essential" to Christian teaching. Jesus Himself was baptized. According to the record, it was at THIS point that the "dove" descended upon Him and the Spirit spoke "this is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well-pleased" or, in some commentary, "on this day have I begotten Thee". This is a very rich teaching of our tradition and I don't understand the urge to make it expendable, or meaningless and "nothing but" metaphor or empty rite or form...or, I say I don't, but I really do...I have done so myself. At any rate, I'm not trying to push anything on anyone. I'm just inviting you guys to take a look at the beauty and the substance of these rites, and in some ways pleading with you guys to not "throw the baby out with the bath water". Discipline and structure does not have to be "authoritative" or "patriarchical" or "oppressive" and, heaven forbid lol, "exclusive"...we have the authority of Christ within us. We can hold to certain structures and traditions without becoming literalist fanatics. Or so I pray. lily

I am not suggesting a "lodge with degrees of membership", I am suggesting a possible way to re-vision the traditions and sacraments that are common to Christianity so that the rites of baptism and the sacrament of the bread and wine and other rites can be infused with new meaning and be seen as significant and life changing to the believer, to us, again. I am also and most certainly not suggesting that anyone should decide for others what "their spiritual status is". Each individual decides for him or herself when and if to be baptized. There are many paths to God. But what does it mean and how do we flesh out walking a distinctly Christian path? That's what I'm trying to work out Peter. And I don't understand why you keep insisting that this is exclusivism. Why does a structured praxis alienate anyones doxis? (a little stab at theological humor...I promise, I won't try this again) Let me make sure that you understand that I am not carving out the way of salvation here, I'm talking about what I envision in my heart a Christian community to be. I never expect everyone, or even many to agree with me and I certainly don't condemn anyone for feeling differently. I understand what you mean about everyone being invited and welcomed to the Lords table. I agree. I think in a perfect Church (perfect for me) there would be lots of communal feasting and giving thanks in fellowship and unity, but that the rite of sanctified bread and wine should be the privilege of those who have freely chosen to make the commitment of baptism into the Body of Christ. It is a rite of passage, an initiation, a re-birth and transformational experience that prepares one for the reception of "holy communion". It seems to me that the whole problem rests here with a confusion between structure and order within a tradition and rules and regulations that restrict the liberty of individuals. I don't condemn others for following traditions outside of Christianity. I don't believe that the Christian tradition is the only path to God. Therefore I can hold fast to a distinctly Christian tradition without excluding anyone from anything. lily

It doesn't have to be about "worth" Comrade. It can be about preparedness. It doesn't have to be couched in the language of condemnation or elitism. All are encouraged to experience baptism and to partake of the joys and mysteries of the sacraments. The Way is not barred to any. Jesus does welcome all. All are welcome at the Lords table. I just favor the tradition of keeping an "agape" feast or meal among all who seek separate from the Eucharist or Communion or the Lords Supper that those who have been baptised in Christ partake of especially. I have a hard time actually understanding why this would offend anyone. No one is forbidden baptism who genuinely seek it, so the sacrament of the Bread and Wine is freely offered to all, just not before you're baptised. I don't want the "form" of baptism to take precedence over the substance or reality of baptism to the believer. There are those who have been dunked, sprinkled and nearly drowned who are not baptised in Christ, and there are those who have never been baptised in water who are nevertheless baptised in Christ. It isn't, to me, about empty form, but about substance and aesthetics (which should not be overlooked or dismissed as irrelevant - its about beauty and ritual and keeping the sacred Sacred) which gives meaning and resonance and inspiration and passion to our faith, it's about commitment to a path and dedication to it, it's about CHOOSING to go this Way, it's about sacrificing whatever is necessary to discipline oneself along The Way. It's not about, "oh, I think I'll go take the sacrament of buddy Jesus today, maybe it will make me feel better." In my opinion we've already been steadily neglecting these things; we've been there, done that. Why not look back, at what our spiritual ancestors may have done; why not make it MORE difficult to be a Christian instead of less? I mean, it IS difficult to be a Christian or to be in process of becoming Christ-like. Isn't it? Why give what is precious away to those who are not committed or serious or prepared to receive it? Why not instead persuade those who come how precious the experience of the sacrament and baptism is, or has all the potential in the world and Gods own Grace to be, instead of choosing to do away with what makes a tradition a tradition? lily

I'm almost hesitant to join this discussion because my thoughts seem so outside what I've read here from you guys so far. I admire the the Orthodox approach too. I have, for some time, been imagining and envisioning a more "initiatory" church, so obviously, I don't favor those who have not been baptised into Christ partaking in the sacrament. Not as an exclusionary manuever at all, but as a way to structure and give form to mystical experience, growth, and developing understanding within the Body of Christ. I guess one way to put it is that I favor the idea of "spiritual training" and bringing back the "emotional and imaginative" intensity of our religious rites and traditions. I think Baptism should be a powerful 're-birth" experience and that the sacrament should follow as true communion with Christ as one who has "died and no longer lives" but who now lives "in Christ". I don't think we should 'democratize" our mysteries. Not even the Pagans do this. There are degrees and grades and levels of initiation and one doesn't skip any steps. This is not exclusionary at all. All who so desire may come. But it inspires diligence and passion I think to re-make these rites *special* and powerful, and which offers transformative experience to a "world" that I believe is starving for this. Am I making any sense? lily