cunninglily

Okay. Fair enough. I shall endeavor to be more patient. Please understand one thing Jen...you have not upset me and I am quite interested in what you have to say, apart from the whole "channeling" thang. It's just that I find it difficult to dialog with you on equal footing if you insist that you are channeling "jesus". I work at a metaphysical bookstore and have "channelers" and "psychics" walk in all the time...so, this is not new to me or alien. I also am a student of the Tarot and read the cards for others from time to time, so my objection is not doctrinal or prejudicial in the way you may think. I believe in the gifts of the Spirit: prophecy, words of wisdom, discernment, healing and all, and I believe that "God" does speak and act through us all the time, but I must admit to never having met a "channel" that I've discerned as authentic...but hey...theres always a first time. I can only imagine. My apologies for my part in that as it was not my intent to hurt you. And if the truth be known you/Jen have been on my heart and mind since I read your first post, and these thoughts and feelings are not ill toward you. I don't expect you to post your thoughts on God the Mother and God the Father perfectly. Heck, I'm never sure I'm making any sense at all when I post. I'm genuinely interested in the subject itself and not as an opportunity to challenge you (or not only as an opportunity to challenge you So, if you like, we shall start again on a new footing. lily

Thats beautiful! Panta rhei...thats just lovely. Thanks Earl. lily

You've posted in the "debate and dialogue" area of the board. Why would I skip your posts? I welcome your rebuttals and responded as I did so as to better understand exactly what you do mean by the things you say. But you should know that I have been an "abused person", an addicted person, and as poor as a church mouse. I'm not looking for a "light and love" message as you seem to mean it. I know that there is suffering and injustice in the world. Most anyone can take the attitude that this world is a "desert of pain" and many have and do, but as a worldview it seems lopsided to me, and does not reflect the glory and goodness of Gods creation. For one thing, I object to the pretense of channeling, as it cushions you from responsiblity for your own words and places you in a position of administering "truth" that must be "received" from the rest of us, and not questioned or challenged by us. You've set yourself up as the Concionator of this Concinnate Church and seem to expect us to accept whatever you say as non-negotiable. For another, you are not saying anything. Most of us here are past the "ol sin and damnation b.s." and all of us here know that there is no "quick and easy way" to fulfill our purpose in God. Next, Lily, please give me an opportunity to define the term "angel". I use the term angel because for most people it has positive, poetic connotations. However, at no time did I say or imply that angels are special emissaries, or that angels come from some distant star. In fact, all souls (or all angels, if you prefer) originate in what some quantum physicists such as David Bohm call the Implicate Order. Souls are quantum beings. They have a complex energy signature, an energy signature that doesn't currently show up on scientific instruments -- though I hope you'll concede the point this means very little. A few years ago, no one could have imagined the invisible network of wireless communication that now crisscrosses the planet and allows you to check your e-mail on your Blackberry as you're walking down a city street. A few decades ago, this would have looked like magic, yet today it's understood as simple science that everyone takes for granted. So to say to me that because my angelic energy signature can't yet be measured is proof that I don't exist is, well, an argument you're not likely to win. Again, you are not saying anything new and you are assuming a great deal. Understand that its not in the least important to me that you do say anything new. It's just that you seem to assume that none of us are on a par with your superior understanding and that everything you speak is a revelation. Most of us realize that "heaven is not up" or "somewhere on Betelgeuse", I mean c'mon. I also agree that we are "born of God" but I also believe that we come out of this earth and return to this earth when we die. I don't believe that we go anywhere because there isn't "anywhere" to go. Perhaps we are saying the same thing in a different language? I would still be interested in hearing how you conceive "Father God" and "Mother God" if you are willing. lily

Yup

Me too. Something I've noted that many Pagans of different traditions do in their sacramental meal is make an offering, or give libation, to the Land itself. I like this, and find it very meaningful. Many Christians have no problem understanding "stewardship" of the Land, or of protecting the Land for future generations, but have much difficulty seeing themselves as one flesh or Body with the Land, and all as the Lords Body. Many Christians don't actively include the Land (and I use Land rather than Earth to impart a sense of locality, ie, "your land" or the land in which you live) in the salvific process. Offering a crust of bread and a small libation of wine to the roots of trees or to the ground includes the Land/Earth in the regeneration and renewal found within Christ. How does this strike the rest of you? Obviously, if you find the "flesh" unredeemable, or the Kingdom of God "somewhere" else other than here, now, this probably won't be meaningful to you. Any thoughts? lily

No problem at all. This will give me some time to get better prepared. Aletheia: I'm glad to see that you are ready for another go-round. The discussion would not be the same without you. I'm hoping, of course, that others here will join us. lily

This is an awesome quotation! Thanks. This brings up a few points that are particularly important in my mind:the role of awareness in the enactment of the rite of communion; the awareness that the bread is the Body of Christ which is inseparable from the Land/Earth, and all creation; the awareness of the wine as the "blood" or fire or anointing of Christ which regenerates and renews all things; and the suggestion that the combining of these elements, through regeneration, and by awareness, gives birth to the Christ "child" in us, and through us, in all things. The bread is therefore a "feminine" element; the "Soul" of the world, and the wine a "masculine" element; the "Light" of the world, and the union of the two brings forth the "offspring" or the "firstfruits" of a new creation, or, Christ in you...and through you...into all creation groaning. The important thing to understand is that this rite, if done with awareness, is transformative. The regeneration and renewal it enacts IS. It only requires our full awareness for it to BE. The mystery of our own sentience is the key to understanding that we are MEDIATORS of Reality; that through our Awareness of Reality, Reality unfolds; "what we loose on earth is loosed on heaven; and what we bind on earth is bound in heaven". There is no "time" in which these things take place...these things are already accomplished...they only await our awareness to be. lily

Which is what I am doing...just wanted you to know. I'm taking notes and everything Are we going to begin with a discussion of the "primordial" and "consequent" nature of God? Seems like a good place to start. ...looking forward, lily

I had hoped that the topic "Praxis and Ritual in Progressive Christianity" would evolve into a discussion of mysticism and would satisfy the interest in "hybrid" practices many of us seem to share. Right now, the message boards seem a bit scattery and I'm sitting back waiting to see where the discussion will take wing. lily

Yes, I was going to add, before reading this post, that I think it a mistake to separate intuition and reason or intellectual pursuits from experiential. Intellectual pursuits can evoke passion and ectasy every bit as much as purely intuitive, mystical pursuits can, as long as *feeling* is not divorced from it....and by feeling I mean something larger than we commonly think of feeling...I mean our ability to respond to what we know from a standpoint of aesthetic (and again I mean aesthetic in the sense of what moves, inspires, and enthuses) value and MEANING. Panta wrote: "The Fundamentalists don't understand the role of interpretation of the Bible, and the New Agers don't understand that interpretation is involved in their experiences." I think this is an excellent statement of what we are straddling in trying to create a Progressive Christianity. We want to open the Bible and our tradition up to new, and fresh revelation while still remaining coherent within a distinctive Christian tradition. We want to open our minds without having our brains fall out in the process. We want to be true to our experience while maintaining the integrity of the tradition within which our experience takes place. Thought and feeling are not two distinct processes anyway. The two are only distinct to the extent that we feel the need to analyze them...but in experience they are not separate. You can't think a thing without feeling something about it and you can't feel a thing without thinking something about it. Or so it seems to me. lily

I only meant that our judgements are not the final word. Even when we feel or think that someone is missing it...whatever that means...we can not know the end of the matter. Besides, beliefs change. Our common faith can remain stable even in the midst of contrary and changing beliefs, and though we can talk with one another and reason with one another, we are not in a position to condemn one another...or so it seems to me. lily

Welcome Joker. I think we need to be careful that we don't fall into a reverse elitism that charges the more learned among us with one-up-manship and exclusivity. Keep in mind that the only way to make theology accessible to non-theologians, is to first become masterful with the language of theology, and THEN to translate that into a more common language for the rest of us. Those who are skilled in theological language and ideas should be allowed a space for exercising and sharpening this skill through dialog and discussion, and should not be silenced because the rest of us feel intimidated or left out. These are complex matters that should not be simplified until they CAN be simplified. Panta mentioned a desire to translate the dense theological language of Panentheism and etc. into more accessible and simpler fare, but at this time can't see how to do so. In time, I believe that Panta will find a way. In the meantime, I think it is in our best interest to allow Panta and Fred and others a place for working this out without trying to make them feel that they are alienating the rest of us by going over our heads. I, like Aletheia, have only a high school education (actually I dropped out of high school...and hey kids, DON'T try this at home) so I am not speaking as one of the *learned*, but as someone who must work very hard just to keep up. People such as Fred and Panta and others on this and other lists serve as my teachers and I am grateful for them. John Bunyan, the author of "A Pilgrims Progress" had no schooling at all, and when asked how he managed to write a book, answered that, "Christianity itself is an education". I say Amen to that. lily

Well, as in all things philosophical, spiritual or religious there are *levels* of interpretation. If you look at the interpretation you gave, which is classic, divinatory Tarot interpretation and valid, you will also see the principle of Intuition imbedded in it. Intuition is In-tuition or Inner Teaching, which will often put one "at odds" with "tradition, rules of culture, and conformity". Each of the 22 Majors presents a principle which encompasses the complete spectrum of applications, including the failure to apply the principle. Numerology, on a roughly Pythagorean model, is also essential to fully understanding Tarot...although some Tarotists focus on number more than others. I focus on Number a lot. The Hierophant is attributed to the Number Five, the number of Man, and is depicted by a "pontifex" or pope, or bridge between God and Man...which, if you think about it, suggests that Intuition is the means by which God and man communicate. At any rate, one could study one of these cards for years...each is that rich and suggestive of deeper and deeper meaning. I studied Tarot under the Builders of the Adytum, which does not support the use of the cards for divination so much as for meditation on the Principles symbolized by each of the 22 Majors, and within the relationships between one Principle and another, or relationships between each card and the others, and as an aid to understanding the Qabalah. (I have, however, studied the divinatory aspects of Tarot as well) My hesitation to discuss Tarot on this forum stems from a concern that it be relevant to a discussion of Progressive Christianity and not completely OT. Many, if not most, Tarot historians recognize a fundamentally Christian worldview at the root of Tarot symbolism and in its meaningful sequence, so its not that the topic of Tarot HAS to be OT, only that it can be. Also, many Christians either condemn it as "of the devil" or think it silly, new-agey bullhonkey, notwithstanding the fact that its been around a lot longer than our present "new age" and has been used and studied by many "justified", righteous, and brilliant men and women throughout its history, and in its "modern" usage (beginning around the 1800's) was used predominately by Christians (although not conventional ones, granted). lily

I think the New Testament suggests strongly that we are equipped with internal guidance which is of the Holy Spirit. We have our consciences informed by the Love of God. In my mind, Christ ushered in a time in which mankind obeys a "higher law"; an inner law and not an outer law or the laws of men. This is a much more sophisticated and mature morality and a much more difficult one because we can not rely on conventional morality or wisdom, but must *hear* God and obey Him. I feel that those who rely strictly upon the Bible or any law "written in stone" essentially miss the Holy Spirit and keep their consciences pacified by an easy righteousness codified by a group. They essentially obey men and not God. If our God is a Living God (and I believe in a *changing* God because I believe in a Living God) then it is vital that we listen to God in the present rather than adhere to "dead letter" OR the laws of men. Paul told us that "Love fulfills the Law", which means to me that any ethical or moral decision or position maintains itself in Love or in Law, one or the other. How do we know which is which? Law requires force and a "legislation of morality", while Love persuades. I watched "Saints and Sinners" on the history channel last night, which was a history of the papacy. What struck me in the program was the tendency of Popes to establish law without persuasion. Pope John Pauls' position on abortion I both understand and support, but I disapprove of his failure to adequately teach the sacred dimensions of sexuality which is the basis of this church law. To the eyes of many his position on abortion and birth control seem arbitrary and imperialist. He failed, in my opinion, to persuade us of the sacredness of Life and Sex and Creation and so the result is people obeying law without any understanding of the spirit of the law, and so sex and the creation of life does not become more sacred, only arbitrarily hindered by Law, and nothing evolves or changes. We STILL have unwanted and starving children and aids run rampant and over-population and so on... lily

"proclaim the Lord's death". What does that mean to you darby? It occurs to me that I'm not at all sure what it means. Does it mean to remember His sacrifice? Or to proclaim that not even the fear of death could dissuade Him from His assurance in his Eternal Self in God? In "proclaiming the Lord's death" do we also proclaim His descent into Hell and His resurrection? Do we proclaim a Living Lord? in communion? I'm asking these things because I want to understand what communion means to you. What does it mean to partake of the body and the blood of Christ? Is it to partake in the very substance of Christ? to become One Body with Him? Or is communion more of a sacred meal, a communion or fellowship with Christs' Body? a fellowship between man and God; a mediation point of contact? Or all of these things...and maybe more? I'm encouraged to hear that small groups of people are gathering to do communion. This seems the best way to take the rote out of ritual. Community is something that I am drawn to as much as I often shy from it. Whats the old saying? "You know its Gods Will when you don't want to do it?" lily

This is lovely. I love the communion done around a table idea. I read somewhere that it is impossible to share a meal with an enemy. If you think about it, this rings true. So, communion in community can be seen as a ritual of peace, and that ALL may come speaks volumes. Thanks for this des. lily

Definitely not! It strikes me that the polytheist has a distinct advantage over the monotheist in these matters. So much of what I'm hearing here boils down to an attempt to make One God coherent. Ironically, while studying paganism, I couldn't wrap my brain around polytheism. Now, back in Christian circles, I am seeing for the first time the difficulties of monotheism. Polytheists recognize a Meta-Cause that the gods themselves are subject to. This is most often identified as both the concept of Fate and as a Divine Feminine Principle or Goddess, or Dame Fate. Fate can be understood (its a complicated and subtle concept) as a web of interconnected "events" occurring in the NOW and the gods themselves act within it, as do we. Hence in some traditions of Paganism, Free Will, or a separate, *personal* will apart from the Web of Fate is an illusion. Most of the Western Mysteries teach the same thing. The illusion of self and self-will is considered purposive, but still an illusion, and one that Life Itself ultimately proves. In other words there is nothing that can be done or thought or spoken APART from Reality or Fate or Gods Will. Nothing or No one ever acts in isolation or apart from everything else...and so, ones smallest act is a RESULT of innumerable *forces* unfolding. The Future does not exist. Not just in relation to the present, but literally does not exist. There is no future for God to see, even in transcendence. This is NOT to say that the Will of God or the movements of Fate can not be discerned. The gods, to a degree outside our comprehension, are AWARE of the movements of Fate or REality or whatever you want to call it, and thus can act purposively within it....as can mankind (to a much lesser degree). Thus, our goal is not to exercise a free will, but to be Aware of the Will of God as it unfolds, and to "trim our sails" in accordance with it. There is also Persuasion (originally an ancient greek goddess btw) in Paganism, most easily understood by referring to Eros, the Idea of being goaded by mysterious inner forces or drives which can be called Desire. According to this way of thinking (both Pagan and Western Mystery) Desire or Love runs the show. And so we are not forced, but essentially "woo-ed" toward a directionality or becoming as Creation unfolds. I am not conversant (yet) with "process theology" or the language of panentheism, so I can not participate in this discussion at the same level as you guys are discussing. But i do understand the discussion and I can see that the difficulties arise as a result of dualistic thinking in many cases. The effort to avoid contradiction and incoherence is endless...only the language of paradox can suffice...and the language of paradox is metaphor. One can stop at this moment and discern that one is within Reality and not separate from anything, and that there is no "in" or "out"...no God that is "out there" or "in here", but Everything is within Everything within Everything...but it is very difficult to articulate in a way that does not pose the problem of contradiction. I offer these ideas in hopes that they will aid this discussion (not that you guys need any help ) and not as a statement of my own belief per se. Although I will admit to intuiting (and Panta...you seem to have a problem with non-rational ways of *knowing* which perplexes me. Intuition is built upon reason. *True* intuition arises at the end of thought or as a result of reasoning and not apart from it...and this I learned from the sequence of the 22 Major Arcana of the Tarot. The Emperor, who symbolizes Reason <i>precedes<i/> the Hierophant who symbolizes Intuition) that there is something you guys are not seeing. My problem is that I can not see it clearly either and couldn't put it into words yet if I could, but I know its there in the discussion itself as it is. I hope you guys don't mind this intrusion outside the confines of this discussion. These are things that occur to me in enjoying and learning from this thread and so to avoid bursting at the gills I express it here. lily

This discussion brings up some interesting points. Is it anywhere written that our beliefs save us or condemn us? It is true and observable that our beliefs can harm us and others...but is this a condemnation that issues from God? Or is this the fruits of our own sowing? I honestly don't believe that differences in interpretation of doctrine factor in as regards salvation. In other words, I don't believe that the literalist is more or less saved than the metaphorical interpreter of doctrine. Beliefs, just like anything else, are to be judged according to the fruits they produce. There are Christian sects out there who believe, as an example, that you must be baptised in the Name of Jesus, NOT in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be truly saved. This is just silly. But it demonstrates how endless this wrangling over words can get in Christian circles, and how tenaciously people hang on to a need to be "right" while making otherst wrong. Have we forgotten that it is written that God looks upon the heart and not what you say you are or how you say you are. Have we become more clever than God? lily

Thank you curlytop. Both of these methods of prayer and meditation interest me. I like the idea of studying with God...I think this is something I approach at times even when reading outside the Bible. The Centering Prayer appeals for its simplicity and its gentle approach to stilling the "monkey mind". To begin to respond to Cynthia's curiosity on "speaking in tongues" I believe that it works in much the same way. There is no fighting the random thoughts of the mind at all...just a gentle return to listening to oneself speaking in an unknown tongue, which eventually brings one to a profound inner quiet and a refreshing of the spirit. The prayer language or gift of tongues is something I received with the baptism in the Spirit. It is difficult to describe how it happens. One simply asks in faith and opens ones mouth and begins to speak. I, being of a somewhat skeptical mind, had difficulty at first receiving this gift and eventually did alone in my room (as opposed to in a group which is how it was first introduced and offered to me). As soon as the "language" poured forth from my mouth, I knew that it was not something that I had fabricated. Afterwards, I experienced what some call a "honeymoon" time in God in which I was so filled with joy that people were stopping me in public places to ask what I was on! It also seems that the exercise of this gift opens a door to the other gifts of the Spirit as well....and not to sound too woo woo...it also seems to open one to Spirits that are not benevolent...the veil between the material and spiritual realms become thinner, and one can discern *spirits* operating through people and events in a more heightened way. I've been really impressed by how every single one of you have mentioned daily life and close relationships as a sacrament and a prayer and a conscious practice of intimacy with God. This may be the most important practice of all. Only curlytop specifically mentioned the mass and communion. I'm interested in how you guys think and feel about the sacrament of bread and wine...if you think of it in terms of "transubstantiation" or as a remembrance. I was struck in my forays into paganism by just how old this practice is...it pre-dates Christianity and is central to most pagan traditions. The Celts practice it as the "Adbertos"; the Traditional Craft people practice is as the "Housle" or "Red Meal" and the Wiccans, of course, make the sacrament of bread and wine central to all their rituals. Of course the emphasis is very different within paganism than it is in Christian practice; it is connected to the "agricultural year" and in some cases is a sacrifice of the first fruits of the harvest. I'd like to talk about this some more as we all have time and occasion. I am so blessed to be discussing these things with all of you. There are times when i have such a strong impulse to put away the books and the endless learning and to get quiet enough to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal what is indeed essential. There seems to me to be a simplicity at the heart of Christian tradition that often gets drowned out by the complexities of the times in which we live. There are times when I am tempted to just say, "shut up and trance" (nods to Aerosmith). There is a unifying force in prayer, ritual, and silence that overtakes the wrangling over words and beliefs and doctrines. In the simplicity of these practices we can get beyond those things which divide us. Or so it seems to me. lily

I have read books on Centering Prayer but it has been long ago....would one of you...or all three describe the practice? And I know that lectio divina translates roughly into divine law...but I have not the slightest idea how one might practice it as a method or technique. Would you guys fill us in? Are all three of you from Catholic backgrounds? I ask because as a Protestant I had to go to Catholic literature to find info on methods and ritual...Protestantism has very little to offer there. My own practice is a mixed bag and still experimental. I still pray in tongues as there is no easier way that I've found to still the mind and to become very quiet and still. I suppose this works in much the same way as does chanting or repetitious prayer. I drum. I also do communion...a wooden bowl, a crust of bread, a goblet of wine, ideally once a week. I also feel that study is a prayer and an intimacy with God...I've been filled with the "joy of the Lord" many times in study...and developing a sense of myself as a creature of Nature, which to my mind is the Body of Christ, is important to me. I hope that we'll have good discussions on these matters as I think they are very important. Part of what is unsatisfying for me within organized religion is the lack of vitality and freshness in the "spiritual" aspects of faith. I guess you could say that I'm searching for a new Christian aesthetic. talk soon lily

This is where I am headed as well. Regretfully, I have not participated in a church in 20 years, and like trirob I miss community and fellowship and the sharing of ritual and practice with other seekers. But my inclination is toward small groups willing to experiment open mindedly with what it means to be Christian and with vital ritual and communal practices which nourish our hunger for God. I am shy about entering an established church with established doctrine and "frozen" practices...although I am open to the possibility of finding a church where things are less rigidly defined and more open to exploration. lily

When I was a young Christian I had a very pronounced attraction to monasticism and was fascinated by the techniques and methods Christians from different traditions (I was raised Baptist ) employed in "practicing the Prescence of God" or in "dying to self" or in seeking intimacy with God. I experimented with Brother Lawrences' "I watch God watching me", and the Jesus Prayer of the Hesychasts; I prayed in tongues (and still do), and was always particularly drawn to what I grew up calling "The Lords Supper". Today I am deeply drawn to re-visioning the role of ritual (which is a way of actively seeking the "thin places") and other methods and techniques created and forged in the fires of sacrifice and devotion by our Ancestors in their longing for transformation and intimacy with God. Do any of you feel a need for a Christian practice? and by practice I mean time consistently set aside for remembrance, or prayer, or meditation, or any number of means by which you enter sacred space and seek intimacy with God? Do any of you combine traditional Christian methods with non-traditional ones? or practice traditional observances in non-traditional ways? I look forward to hearing from all of you... lily

Speaking of psychospiritual approaches....are any of you interested in discussing ritual and praxis within a Progressive Christian context? I've always been interested in the techniques, methods, rituals etc. found within the larger Christian tradition such as hesychasm, praying in the spirit or in tongues, contemplation, incubation or silence, communion etc, as well as techniques found outside the Christian tradition that nevertheless offer potential to a Christian practice, such as certain basic shamanic approaches like trance drumming and so on... anyone interested? lily

can I hear an amen?! lily