conversations with kathy
(part three)
Kathy: CWG, book 1, pg 13: "God created the process of life and life itself as you know it. Yet God gave you free choice, to do with as you will. In this sense, your will for you is God's will for you. You are living your life the way you are living your life, and I have no preference in the matter. This is the grand illusion in which you have engaged: that God cares one way or the other what you do."
I wish I could quote about three paragraphs here, because I know how this can be taken out of context, but we'll just go with it- maybe it will be more provocative :)
While some people may read this and tearfully respond, "God doesn't care about me," this whole idea of literal FREE WILL helped me figure out what to do with my life. Christianity is big on the WILL OF GOD. It's our responsibility to memorize it (according to the bible) or discern it (with the help of the Holy Spirit) and then bring ourselves to heel. But the idea that God has a plan for us- well, for some that might be comforting, but for me, it was terrifying.
WHAT is God's will for me? WHAT am I supposed to be doing with my life? See, if there's something I'm supposed to do, then there's a whole lot that I'm not supposed to do. I've been paralyzed by the fear of doing the wrong thing, making the wrong decision, choosing the wrong career...etc.
But what if there isn't a wrong answer? What if God is perfectly happy with me making choices that reflect who I am, rather than who someone else thinks I should be? What if I can't screw up? Think about how many things you might try if you weren't fearful of doing the WRONG thing? What if you knew that when you made a less than stellar choice, you could simply change your mind, choose again, and face no punishment (other than natural consequences)?
---------------------------------------
kevin: i am glad you chose this topic, because it's one i've been dwelling on a lot, too, since reading the book several months back. our whole life landscape in the community of faith that is huffman united methodist church (we'll keep it local right now, since we are both part of that community) is constructed around these dated ideas of what we should and shouldn't do.
one of the reasons that i've been so sensitive to how people are perceiving limbo is that our group was borne out of the idea that church was doing it "wrong". now, to your point and this post's thread, "wrong" would be relative, so we'll go with limbo was borne out of the idea that (our) church was borderline irrelevant. due to the fact that i made the decision that we'd meet during the sunday school hour, the church has understood us to be nothing more than a sunday school, for better or worse, one that is "looking to be involved" and one that should probably be interested in luncheons that might be attractive to other "young adults" that are looking for a place to "plug in". limbo is seen as "filling a need" because we are all under 40 and weren't doing much within the church, corporate, before limbo got off the ground. while all of those things serve a noble and honest sentiment, they still miss the point. i am losing my point.
i think what i am trying to say is that we are salmon swimming upstream, fighting against the antiquated current of what "should be", a structure that was forged and laid hundreds upon hundreds of years ago. it is a structure that relies primarily on the idea that god will "punish" us if we don't figure out what it is that he wants us to do and appropriate our thoughts and measures according to how many generations before me have interpreted who god is through their reading of the scripture.
now, this begs the question, who am i to swim upstream? who i am i to question the proven theory and thesis that is christianity. if i didn't believe in "the story", i wouldn't be worried about my church and it's relevancy and limbo and/or vacation bible school or the halloween carnival or any of the other "ministries" that i have developed a passion for over my 33 year plus years. or, would i?
but back to your thought. or the book's thought. or god's thought. gosh, wouldn't that just be something? that all this time, the nature of our choices and the lives that we led would, at worst, lengthen the period of time between now and when it WILL BE that we meet "our maker". that the choices we make or don't make according to our communities of faith weren't necessarily wrong, but off-path. the nature of reward vs. consequence being thrown completely on its head. it's a lovely thought. it's a thought that my 33-plus years of living in the shadow of eternal separation from god being a reality is not totally comfortable with and totally in love with at the same time...
--------------------------------------------------------------
The sunk-cost fallacy. That's what popped into my head. For those who aren't familiar with it, it's the argument that "money, time, or energy already invested justifies the investment of yet more time, energy, or money." In other words, if we've been doing religion a certain way for hundreds of years, then we should continue to do it that way because to change the way we do it would in essence be saying we've been doing it wrong all along. We don't want to have wasted all this time...so let's justify what we've been doing by continuing to do it :)
This is the problem with the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!" crowd. Maybe if we believed that God was still talking, still evolving, then we'd still be listening and evolving too. Maybe we wouldn't be afraid to ask ourselves if God still wants us to be doing religion the way we have been...or if He ever wanted us to do it in the first place. Personally, I thought Jesus was preaching the message that religious law was trumped by personal freedom in God. Maybe I've misunderstood. Wouldn't be the first time. However, I've become cynical enough to believe that Churches have become bureaucracies whose sole purpose is to sustain their own existence. We need to bring people to Christ (church) so that they (or our church) can be saved.
Anyway- maybe that's a little off topic. Or maybe it's just the applying of these ideas at a corporate level, which is where you were going with it, I think. But can we change the way we perceive choice at the corporate level without changing how we see choice at the personal level?
A quick caveat- You've just read this book. I read it over 8 years ago for the first time. The first time I talked about these ideas with another person, I was trembling all over. The very foundation of my Christian belief was shaking apart, and it manifested physically in my body. I couldn't control the trembling- even my voice was shaking. Eight years later, these ideas no longer thrill and scare me at the same time. As I said when I gave you the book, the ideas took root in me, quietly and firmly, OVER TIME...and there they have remained. I trust my soul to discard false ideas. Funny that the ideas that have been discarded are Christianity's most fundamental beliefs.
----------------------------------------------------
regarding your caveat, it's obvious we found this book at very different points in our respective spiritual journeys, which i think is one of the reasons that having a back and forth about the ideas contained within the book are fun and invigorating. what i found while reading the book was not something scary or something that shook my foundation, rather ideas that characterized a god that i've always wanted to believe in but one that is continually reinforced in my "christian" experiences doesn't exist.
advancing the thought of churches having evolved into entities where survival is priority number one, well, you already know that i agree with you here. let's take a quick look at the northeast alabama united methodist conference for a second. god bless our beloved pastor, but it is now no secret that he is under immense political (read this word intentionally) pressure from his district superintendent and bishop to increase humc's connectional giving. so much pressure in fact, that if we do not change our giving habits, harris legitimately feels that a likely consequence will be his appointment being moved away from us. simply put, what kind of retarded logic and broken system would make such threats??? before i continue, let me reinforce what should already be obvious. i believe in the theory of the united methodist connectional system. in theory. i have colored my own person, literally, with how strongly i believe in it if done correctly. having said that, our system no longer is working in theory. in practice, it has been perverted. in practice, is the bishop truly concerned the the spiritual wellness of his congregations as shown through their connectional tithes, or he is concerned that our not giving makes his budget on the conference level more likely to be out of whack? there may be some of the former in there somewhere, but political threats such as the ones that have been levied against our pastor and congregation argue much more strongly for the latter. as much as i love harris, will humc stop being a church if he is removed and someone lower on the totem pole that the bishop feels we "deserve" is sent to us? of course not. we'll continue to fall back towards our "final stand" becoming more instinctual and more survival-prone and eventually we will dwindle away. but who does our dwindling away actually hurt? what harm will be done? in truth, not much. inventories will be taken. new ministries will arise. a new daycare in the heart of our community will open to service the needs of those we might leave behind. the conference budget will be adjusted to account for our absence. and that will be that.
in the first several meetings i took part in while serving as lay leader, i continually tried to ask the question, "who are we?" is humc a building or an idea? currently, i would say that we are a building. a building with old plumbing and old ideas and a congregation that is in love with our building and the way we've sustained ourselves for close to 140 years. shouldn't we be an idea, though? before the richards moved, as part of my rhetorical question i would say out loud that, while i loved my church, i would be okay if i worshipped around the richards' pool every sunday morning if it meant our church finally found a way to be an idea not handcuffed to a building.
this longwinded example speaks to choices our collective community makes out of fear of "the consequences". what if we could remove that from the equation...
--------------------------------------------------------
One of the quotes I'd wanted to include above I'll add here, paraphrased: God is like a parent who sends his children into the back yard to play. He doesn't care WHAT we play- we could play hide and seek or capture the flag or kickball- it's up to us because he's put us in a safe place and he gives us the freedom to experience what we want. We may get hurt accidentally, or hurt someone in anger intentionally- and God, like a parent, would be quick to soothe and/or correct, but the next day, the children get to go out and play again.
Somehow we've gotten the idea that God wants us to play kickball (or church). And that's all we've played. And it's not fun anymore- we're bored, we don't know why we're still playing, and hardly any of our friends want to come over anymore.
Metaphors are just popping into my head like crazy- I'll try not to bore you.
You have to be willing to part with old, rarely worn, outdated clothes before you'll have room in your closet for new ones.
Nature's forest fires clear acres and acres of old wood so that a forest can be reborn.
You get the picture.
Why are we so afraid to let go of things that are no longer inspiring? I won't say they're no longer working, because for some people they work. But what we lack is inspiration. What makes you excited about God?
I'll be bold and say that I don't think God gives a flip about church. God cares about people joyfully experiencing their God-given potential, and let's face it, a majority of the time religion is stifling rather than inspiring.
God, IMO, doesn't care about church. We can do Sunday morning worship or Saturday afternoon football parties or Wednesday night supper clubs- out of those three, where do find yourself truly connecting with people?
We're free to do a new thing- why is that so hard to believe?
---------------------------------------------
well, i can only speak to my experience of course, but it is so hard to believe because it sounds too good to be true. at least, personally, it does.
church-wise, like i've said, i am and have been asking the same question? it shouldn't be this hard. it isn't this hard. we make it this hard.
we serve platitudes like "seek god's will" and "guide me, holy spirit" and "change the world" to each other without spelling out what any of those things actually mean. when i hear someone offer the advice that we just should "seek god's will", i cringe, because the implication is that i or we or our church isn't doing just that. it implies that the giver of the platitude has things completely figured out in their life and is hiding the magic answer from the rest of us. it rings hollow. just as it feels the practice of church as we currently know it and do it rings hollow for many, many people close to me.
does that mean we are right and the rest of the "christian" world is wrong? no, of course it doesn't. but, if even one part of god's collective genuinely feels a twinge to move in a direction opposite of the norm, it does a disservice to god's collective to not hear the differing opinion with the same weight as anyone else's.
if we are made in god's image and he has given us free choice that is associated with free will, we are doing shamefully little with that gift if we continue to constrain ourselves to someone else's right and wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's try (Ha!) to come full circle here. We've focused a lot on Christianity and the church experience in particular here, but that's only one example of how a belief in GOD'S WILL (as being somehow "out there" and separate from ours) can create staleness in life. Fear of doing the wrong thing, or the fear of failing to figure out God's will, paralyzes us from moving forward in TRUE FAITH. Faith to me is not about believing in things that can't be proven- Faith (to me) is believing that all is right in God's world and that what's happening cannot be outside of God's plan. How is it phrased in the book? "If you're looking for God, you're in luck! God is so big, you can't miss."
I'm going to make a prediction- which I will probably not be around to see-
I think that within the next century the church institution will die out and be replaced by small group communities. We are trying to inject life into a terminal patient. I understand why we're doing it- because we haven't figured out the alternative yet. But God has given us the ability to figure it out- and he's given us permission as well. Now, we just have to give ourselves permission.
Showing posts with label CWG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CWG. Show all posts
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
conversations with kathy
(part two)
"words are merely utterances: noises that stand for feelings, thoughts and experience. they are symbols. signs. insignias. they are not Truth. they are not the real thing." ...
..."in fact, you place so little value on experience that when your experience of God differs from what you've heard of God, you automatically discount the experience and own the words, when it should be just the other way around."
thematically, one of the things that kathy and i agree on with the book, the dialogue between walsch and God has a terrific flow to it. the questions and answers build nicely from one to the other just as any good and honest back and forth should. my guess is that my and kathy's conversation will probably end up being a lot like that. one topic will inspire the next and then the next and so forth and so on. going into this endeavor, i know i, personally, had a list of things that i wanted to talk about, and we may end up covering them all. however, i think it will be more enjoyable for us and those of you that are riding along for our "conversations" to feel connected, if you will, in thought and line.
which brings us to our second part. words (what we've been told or have read) versus experience.
thank you to all of those that joined our last "conversation" on free will in the comments. i hope we can continue to incite reaction as we go forth. the more voices, the better!!! as i've reflected on my and kathy's discussion and those shared in the comments, i have wondered to myself how much or how many of our convictions are built upon the foundation of words and how much is built on true experience. when push comes to shove, which, in turn, provides to be the stronger foundation.
i will start with a very basic example. an exchange from the movie, contact, that has always and will always stay with me.
{ellie (jodie foster's character) challenges palmer joss (dude from dazed and confused, likes the look of himself shirtless) to prove the existence of god.}
palmer: did you love your father?
ellie: what?
palmer: your dad. did you love him?
ellie: yes, very much.
palmer: prove it.
what do scientists, by definition, do? they theorize and then set out to prove or disprove their theories, right? the exchange between ellie and palmer very simply, but very profoundly, illustrates the impossible equation that any of us (life scientists, if you will) that consider to be in relationship with a God that we can't see find ourselves in.
how can we prove our love for god when we can't prove there even is a god? how can we be so sure about our definition of free will when we won't know that free will or fate was the right "answer" until we are too far under the ground to be able to share our revelation with anyone.
is it because the bible tells us so? maybe. maybe, it depends on who told you so. and who told them. gasp. what if they were wrong? how much of everything that we've learned about anything have we learned through true experience? how much of everything that we've learned about anything have we learned because someone told us or we read it in someone else's book?
how much of your relationship with god is based on what you've heard or read? how much of it is based on what you've experienced for yourself?
now, we are getting somewhere.
kathy?
------------------------------------------------------------
My search for God has taken me to many strange places, both figuratively and literally. Figuratively, I’ve opened my mind to exploring different religions and practices, I’ve learned to read tarot cards (which are just ancient Rorschach ink blot cards, in my opinion), I’ve dallied in energy healing, I own a crystal pendulum and Runes (thanks Tanya!), and I’m fascinated by astrology.
Literally, I once communed with a small wildflower on Mount Shasta.
What???
A couple of years ago, my sister-in-law and I journeyed to the New Age hippie capital of the USA- Mount Shasta. We hiked up the mountain and found a “sacred” wildflower prairie. Since we’re both seekers of the God experience, we went to separate areas of the prairie for a short meditation. I sat on a flat stone on the ground and just listened to the sound of the wind. I noticed a small patch of wildflowers in front of me- small purple flowers no bigger than my pinkie. As I stared at one of the flowers, I felt recognition, like I knew the flower. Then I realized that what I recognized in the flower was myself- the essence that gave life to the flower was the same essence that gave life to me. It’s hard to explain, but it was like the flower had my personality.
It’s easy, in theory, to extrapolate from there- if the same essence that gives me life gives the flower life…gives the trees life…gives the squirrel life…gives you life…
I wouldn’t have been capable of crushing that small blossom under my shoe- it would have been like crushing myself…
“What you do unto the least of these, you do unto me…”
I think Jesus understood the connectedness of life, and that the thing that connects us is God.
Religion would have us believe that God is a man in the sky who rewards or punishes us based on whether or not he approves of our behavior. Religion would have us substitute Santa Claus for God.
But my experience of God is much more subtle, more metaphysical. I can hardly reconcile my experience with the picture that my religion has painted for me. The only reason I hang on to Christianity is because I think Jesus GOT IT.
The problem with experience is that no one has the same experience as another. If I told you that God is a flower, that wouldn’t be exactly right, and you might think I’m crazy and call me a heretic. Religion requires structure- and that is why it discounts personal experience and embraces uniform “beliefs.” But by embracing uniform beliefs, we’ve squelched the acceptance of personal experience- unless it confirms what we’ve already been told by our religion. Yikes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i agree with that...to a point.
i don't think religion or the practice thereof inherently squelches the ability of one to truly experience god. if we limit ourselves and our experience, though, to what we've been told we are supposed to get out of it, then sure, you are right.
a small and relatively trivial example is being told to sing louder and sing prouder during our worship service at humc in the past. why? does volume contribute to one or many of the congregation feeling a deeper or meaningful connection to the god we are all searching for? i would argue "no". i don't think that god needs our worship or our voices to validate his importance in our lives or his connection to us. the experience of worship, just like the experience of eating a really good peanut butter and banana sandwich should be the most personal of experiences at it's root. if we are able to convey our connection to god through song or through good food, great. if not, though, that doesn't make the experience any less meaningful. it just makes it ours.
we all need and want structure in our life. that's not just a religion thing, right? you are married. so am i. we opt for a certain structure in those relationships and work individually with the interest of the entire unit (ideally) in mind. if we are successful, the sum will operate more effectively than it's separated parts. the same could and should, in my opinion, be said for the way the human collective has been built in god's image. if we, as a population, were ever willing to understand, as you suggest with your flower, that we are connected using the concept of one, big, happy family, we would treat each other accordingly. obviously, somewhere along the grand scheme of things, something happened and we started to turn on each other. people started drawing lines. making rules. dividing. doing the "if you're not with me, you're against me" thing. same with religion. evidenced by the hundreds of different "truths" and denominations that you can find driving down anywhere street, usa, division is now the rule. collective interest, the exception.
this past sunday, limbo talked a lot about platitudes and boiled them down to "a comment perceived to be shallow or unoriginal that terminates all cognitive thought."
isn't this what religion, in and of itself, has become? a broken system of antiquated rules and irrelevant thoughts that end up terminating all cognitive thought?
but i say that to say this. i don't think that's what our creator intended. i do think the world, the universe even, is governed by rules and a structure. we can talk about those later on. but the number one rule has been and always will be, in so many words, "love your fellow man as i (god) love you."
how does god love us? well, he experiences us, of course.
how does he do that?
how doesn't he?
-------------------------------------------
I definitely agree that we all need structure in our lives- even our religious lives. That's why many religions have "practices" such as prayer and meditation. I guess the structure that rubs me the wrong way is the litany of creeds. Our creeds, or lists of agreed upon beliefs, were created to EXCLUDE people, not help bring us all closer to our awareness of God.
Maybe that's what I feel that Christianity is missing. We focus on getting everyone to believe what we believe, when what we're all really after is an experience of God. The thing is, what makes me more aware of God won't necessarily work for you - and vice versa.
Also, one thing I've found in my "search" for the God experience is that the experience that I'm searching for has been defined by others. In other words- I don't know exactly what I'm after because I haven't experienced it yet.
Or have I?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i hear what you are saying about the creeds, but the way that i look at them is similar to their suggested value in marcus borg's book, the heart of christianity. through being familiar with those creeds or familiar hymns and saying them or singing them surrounded by a congregation that, in theory, is searching for the same thing i am, i hope to find myself in a "thin place". i don't see them as binding or exclusive contracts, rather an open expression of where i find my current faith. even on the days that i feel farthest away from god, saying the apostle's creed or singing "be thou my vision" reels me back in, removes some of my cynicism and allows me a breath of fresh god, if only for the few moments that i am participating in those elements of worship.
the closest i feel i have ever been to truly and honestly experiencing god, not surprisingly, was in the presence of my two girls being born. there i was. beaten down, skeptical, selfish and narcissistic kevin o'kelley, partially responsible for freaking creating a life!!! i mean..., jesus! i've said this before, but both times, i thought that i literally felt my heart grow to make room for my children. i had never felt anything like that before. i haven't been able to replicate it since.
that's what i am looking for now. every day. in most of the intentional things that i do. looking to find that experience again. i know the common denominator in each experience was unconditional love. it didn't have anything to do with a creed, or the denomination i subscribe to. it had everything to do with letting go of the ties that bind me to this world just for a few minutes, and focus on those two little girls. it was magical, but in my heart of hearts, i felt like it was what we are intended to feel. to experience.
all the time.
------------------------------------------------------
At the risk of going off on a tangent...
As we've had this discussion (hot on the heels of me seeing Avatar), I keep thinking about "I see you."
For me, knowing that God is present in all things and all people, I find myself strangely uneasy when I really look into someone else's eyes. It feels extremely intimate in a way that we, as a culture or a species or whatever, are not "into." We separate ourselves from each other, we draw boundaries, we throw up aversive personalities or humor or whatever keeps the other at arm's length.
As you point out, that barrier doesn't exist with our children. I don't know about you, but I could stare into my children's eyes and experience a total lovefest. "I see you..." and love you.
Frankly, I'm not sure I'm ready for the full God experience. I'm not sure I can fall into intimacy with everyone I lock eyes with. I think I'd be a total crybaby all the time.
Maybe creeds are easier.
--------------------------------------------------------------
easy is overrated.
(part two)
"words are merely utterances: noises that stand for feelings, thoughts and experience. they are symbols. signs. insignias. they are not Truth. they are not the real thing." ...
..."in fact, you place so little value on experience that when your experience of God differs from what you've heard of God, you automatically discount the experience and own the words, when it should be just the other way around."
thematically, one of the things that kathy and i agree on with the book, the dialogue between walsch and God has a terrific flow to it. the questions and answers build nicely from one to the other just as any good and honest back and forth should. my guess is that my and kathy's conversation will probably end up being a lot like that. one topic will inspire the next and then the next and so forth and so on. going into this endeavor, i know i, personally, had a list of things that i wanted to talk about, and we may end up covering them all. however, i think it will be more enjoyable for us and those of you that are riding along for our "conversations" to feel connected, if you will, in thought and line.
which brings us to our second part. words (what we've been told or have read) versus experience.
thank you to all of those that joined our last "conversation" on free will in the comments. i hope we can continue to incite reaction as we go forth. the more voices, the better!!! as i've reflected on my and kathy's discussion and those shared in the comments, i have wondered to myself how much or how many of our convictions are built upon the foundation of words and how much is built on true experience. when push comes to shove, which, in turn, provides to be the stronger foundation.
i will start with a very basic example. an exchange from the movie, contact, that has always and will always stay with me.
{ellie (jodie foster's character) challenges palmer joss (dude from dazed and confused, likes the look of himself shirtless) to prove the existence of god.}
palmer: did you love your father?
ellie: what?
palmer: your dad. did you love him?
ellie: yes, very much.
palmer: prove it.
what do scientists, by definition, do? they theorize and then set out to prove or disprove their theories, right? the exchange between ellie and palmer very simply, but very profoundly, illustrates the impossible equation that any of us (life scientists, if you will) that consider to be in relationship with a God that we can't see find ourselves in.
how can we prove our love for god when we can't prove there even is a god? how can we be so sure about our definition of free will when we won't know that free will or fate was the right "answer" until we are too far under the ground to be able to share our revelation with anyone.
is it because the bible tells us so? maybe. maybe, it depends on who told you so. and who told them. gasp. what if they were wrong? how much of everything that we've learned about anything have we learned through true experience? how much of everything that we've learned about anything have we learned because someone told us or we read it in someone else's book?
how much of your relationship with god is based on what you've heard or read? how much of it is based on what you've experienced for yourself?
now, we are getting somewhere.
kathy?
------------------------------------------------------------
My search for God has taken me to many strange places, both figuratively and literally. Figuratively, I’ve opened my mind to exploring different religions and practices, I’ve learned to read tarot cards (which are just ancient Rorschach ink blot cards, in my opinion), I’ve dallied in energy healing, I own a crystal pendulum and Runes (thanks Tanya!), and I’m fascinated by astrology.
Literally, I once communed with a small wildflower on Mount Shasta.
What???
A couple of years ago, my sister-in-law and I journeyed to the New Age hippie capital of the USA- Mount Shasta. We hiked up the mountain and found a “sacred” wildflower prairie. Since we’re both seekers of the God experience, we went to separate areas of the prairie for a short meditation. I sat on a flat stone on the ground and just listened to the sound of the wind. I noticed a small patch of wildflowers in front of me- small purple flowers no bigger than my pinkie. As I stared at one of the flowers, I felt recognition, like I knew the flower. Then I realized that what I recognized in the flower was myself- the essence that gave life to the flower was the same essence that gave life to me. It’s hard to explain, but it was like the flower had my personality.
It’s easy, in theory, to extrapolate from there- if the same essence that gives me life gives the flower life…gives the trees life…gives the squirrel life…gives you life…
I wouldn’t have been capable of crushing that small blossom under my shoe- it would have been like crushing myself…
“What you do unto the least of these, you do unto me…”
I think Jesus understood the connectedness of life, and that the thing that connects us is God.
Religion would have us believe that God is a man in the sky who rewards or punishes us based on whether or not he approves of our behavior. Religion would have us substitute Santa Claus for God.
But my experience of God is much more subtle, more metaphysical. I can hardly reconcile my experience with the picture that my religion has painted for me. The only reason I hang on to Christianity is because I think Jesus GOT IT.
The problem with experience is that no one has the same experience as another. If I told you that God is a flower, that wouldn’t be exactly right, and you might think I’m crazy and call me a heretic. Religion requires structure- and that is why it discounts personal experience and embraces uniform “beliefs.” But by embracing uniform beliefs, we’ve squelched the acceptance of personal experience- unless it confirms what we’ve already been told by our religion. Yikes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i agree with that...to a point.
i don't think religion or the practice thereof inherently squelches the ability of one to truly experience god. if we limit ourselves and our experience, though, to what we've been told we are supposed to get out of it, then sure, you are right.
a small and relatively trivial example is being told to sing louder and sing prouder during our worship service at humc in the past. why? does volume contribute to one or many of the congregation feeling a deeper or meaningful connection to the god we are all searching for? i would argue "no". i don't think that god needs our worship or our voices to validate his importance in our lives or his connection to us. the experience of worship, just like the experience of eating a really good peanut butter and banana sandwich should be the most personal of experiences at it's root. if we are able to convey our connection to god through song or through good food, great. if not, though, that doesn't make the experience any less meaningful. it just makes it ours.
we all need and want structure in our life. that's not just a religion thing, right? you are married. so am i. we opt for a certain structure in those relationships and work individually with the interest of the entire unit (ideally) in mind. if we are successful, the sum will operate more effectively than it's separated parts. the same could and should, in my opinion, be said for the way the human collective has been built in god's image. if we, as a population, were ever willing to understand, as you suggest with your flower, that we are connected using the concept of one, big, happy family, we would treat each other accordingly. obviously, somewhere along the grand scheme of things, something happened and we started to turn on each other. people started drawing lines. making rules. dividing. doing the "if you're not with me, you're against me" thing. same with religion. evidenced by the hundreds of different "truths" and denominations that you can find driving down anywhere street, usa, division is now the rule. collective interest, the exception.
this past sunday, limbo talked a lot about platitudes and boiled them down to "a comment perceived to be shallow or unoriginal that terminates all cognitive thought."
isn't this what religion, in and of itself, has become? a broken system of antiquated rules and irrelevant thoughts that end up terminating all cognitive thought?
but i say that to say this. i don't think that's what our creator intended. i do think the world, the universe even, is governed by rules and a structure. we can talk about those later on. but the number one rule has been and always will be, in so many words, "love your fellow man as i (god) love you."
how does god love us? well, he experiences us, of course.
how does he do that?
how doesn't he?
-------------------------------------------
I definitely agree that we all need structure in our lives- even our religious lives. That's why many religions have "practices" such as prayer and meditation. I guess the structure that rubs me the wrong way is the litany of creeds. Our creeds, or lists of agreed upon beliefs, were created to EXCLUDE people, not help bring us all closer to our awareness of God.
Maybe that's what I feel that Christianity is missing. We focus on getting everyone to believe what we believe, when what we're all really after is an experience of God. The thing is, what makes me more aware of God won't necessarily work for you - and vice versa.
Also, one thing I've found in my "search" for the God experience is that the experience that I'm searching for has been defined by others. In other words- I don't know exactly what I'm after because I haven't experienced it yet.
Or have I?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i hear what you are saying about the creeds, but the way that i look at them is similar to their suggested value in marcus borg's book, the heart of christianity. through being familiar with those creeds or familiar hymns and saying them or singing them surrounded by a congregation that, in theory, is searching for the same thing i am, i hope to find myself in a "thin place". i don't see them as binding or exclusive contracts, rather an open expression of where i find my current faith. even on the days that i feel farthest away from god, saying the apostle's creed or singing "be thou my vision" reels me back in, removes some of my cynicism and allows me a breath of fresh god, if only for the few moments that i am participating in those elements of worship.
the closest i feel i have ever been to truly and honestly experiencing god, not surprisingly, was in the presence of my two girls being born. there i was. beaten down, skeptical, selfish and narcissistic kevin o'kelley, partially responsible for freaking creating a life!!! i mean..., jesus! i've said this before, but both times, i thought that i literally felt my heart grow to make room for my children. i had never felt anything like that before. i haven't been able to replicate it since.
that's what i am looking for now. every day. in most of the intentional things that i do. looking to find that experience again. i know the common denominator in each experience was unconditional love. it didn't have anything to do with a creed, or the denomination i subscribe to. it had everything to do with letting go of the ties that bind me to this world just for a few minutes, and focus on those two little girls. it was magical, but in my heart of hearts, i felt like it was what we are intended to feel. to experience.
all the time.
------------------------------------------------------
At the risk of going off on a tangent...
As we've had this discussion (hot on the heels of me seeing Avatar), I keep thinking about "I see you."
For me, knowing that God is present in all things and all people, I find myself strangely uneasy when I really look into someone else's eyes. It feels extremely intimate in a way that we, as a culture or a species or whatever, are not "into." We separate ourselves from each other, we draw boundaries, we throw up aversive personalities or humor or whatever keeps the other at arm's length.
As you point out, that barrier doesn't exist with our children. I don't know about you, but I could stare into my children's eyes and experience a total lovefest. "I see you..." and love you.
Frankly, I'm not sure I'm ready for the full God experience. I'm not sure I can fall into intimacy with everyone I lock eyes with. I think I'd be a total crybaby all the time.
Maybe creeds are easier.
--------------------------------------------------------------
easy is overrated.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
conversations with kathy
(part one)
CWG, book 1, p. 39:
"There are those who say that I have given you free will, yet these same people claim that if you do not obey Me, I will send you to hell. What kind of free will is that?"
It seems to me that the religious concept of God as unknowable is accurate. The "Ultimate Reality" or whatever we choose to call it, cannot be comprehended by the human mind. ALL religions say this somewhere in their scriptures. It follows then, that in our attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible, we project onto God characteristics that we as humans can understand.
We touched on this in Sunday school yesterday (sorry you weren't there Kev!). The idea of hell and eternal damnation, in my opinion, is and was created by humans. WE need to believe that "bad" people will be punished. It's hard to see people behaving in ways that we think are wrong or even evil, and yet they seem to continue on with their lives relatively unharmed. Where is the punishment, the retribution, the consequences? Life seems unfair. Thankfully, God will give them what they deserve in the afterlife! Whew! I feel better, don't you?
If this is your belief, that's fine- I'm pragmatic when it comes to religious beliefs and practices. After all, if it's working for you, what more can you ask? However, if you're really in the business of KNOWING God as much as He/She/It can be known, then we have to be a little more objective. That's where I have a problem with the conventional idea of free will- you know the one that says that we can do whatever we want, but if we don't do what God wants, then we're going to hell? Hmmm. Maybe we just need to forget what we want and try to figure out what God wants...
Here's my take: If there is a cost associated with a certain choice, then choice is no longer free.
I'm frustrated by the mental gymnastics that Christianity asks us to perform in order to accept this idea of free will. We must suspend all logic in order to accept the concept of free will that isn't actually free. I know, I know- you can't know God through logic, but must know God through faith. But putting faith in convoluted thinking which was created for the purpose of making us feel better about the obvious "unfairness" of life is stupid.
If there is no eternal retribution, of course, then how in the world can we control people's behavior? It IS a dilemma.
-----------------------------------------
on the whole, kathy, i agree with most of what you are saying. having grown up in the church, i always associated free will as being somewhat conditional. it wasn't 'til i got out and away from the church for a little bit that i was able to understand just how conditional it really was for those that chose to immerse themselves in the thinking that God would have us running through a maze for this portion of our existence.
obviously, there is a comfort to the conditions if you adhere to them, and i am sure we'll touch on some of the more specific conditions as we continue this conversation. as it relates to the subject of free will, though, let me look at it for a second through the lens of humc's current senior pastor. i love brother harris, and i don't know that i could convince myself that he had one disingenuous bone in his body. let me say that first and foremost. i believe with every ounce of my heart that he has my and the congregation of our church's best and eternal interests at heart when he delivers a message to us on sunday morning. having said that, i'll say this. many of his sermons center around a recurring theme. as our pastor, he warns us in so many words that free will is something to be tamed, not embraced. he has said many, many times that all he wants for his congregation to know is the information that is vital for us to pass through with him into the kingdom of heaven. and i love him for that. even though he is constantly reminding me of my mortality and the fears that have enveloped me since last july, i love that my senior pastor cares for me and my church family so much that he is doing everything he feels called to do to make sure we spend our eternal life enjoying the same heavenly reward.
as it pertains to this post's topic, though, it's the taming of our free will or the bending it towards one specific answer, one truth, that i have a hard time swallowing. if God, in fact, formed us truly in his image, it seems preposterous to me that he would allow our eternal separation to be so mechanical and unrelenting and un-grace-full to be risked on my perpetual questioning. did He not build me to question? does He not question, himself? wouldn't it make more sense that the free will that we all struggle with, when it comes to our desires and our vices and our loves and our interests be looked upon as a gift and not a curse? to me, it does.
to most, they would agree...to a point. to the point where they've drawn their conditional line in the sand. i've been raised to believe this. and i can't so far as to believe that. so, i'll end up settling here, because it's much too scary over there. i am guilty of drawing lines in the sand too. i am happy, though, that it seems, as i am getting older and obtaining a broader sense of who i think God really is, that my line continues to pull back to allow many others behind it rather than pushing forth and becoming more exclusive.
after all, free will is not just my gift. it's yours too.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If we want to get to the crux of the matter, which is what Walsch tries to do, then we have to ask the big question. Can you do anything, no matter how "bad," and still be reconciled with God in the end? I'm not talking about being sorry and asking for forgiveness, saying a gazillion Hail Mary's, and generally jumping through all the religious hoops, etc., that are required by most religions in order to get back on the good list. I'm talking about there being a predetermined outcome of reconciliation- a sense that, no matter what, you can't lose because Life isn't a test to be passed, but an experience to be savored. I'm talking about eternal reward/outcome here, not the natural consequences we face for our choices in this life (which we should definitely talk about), but ULTIMATE outcome. As I touched on earlier, this is a dangerous idea because it takes away God's big stick, which religions clumsily try to wield in order to control human behavior. Still- what would the world look like without the threat of eternal damnation? What do you think?
-------------------------------------------------------
well, if we are talking about "the world" as we experience it now, it sounds really scary to not have a check (whether that check is represented by religion, government, etc. doesn't really matter i guess) that might balance out the manifestation of "evil" in the world. that being said, the rhetorical you pose is one that we already have a metaphorical picture of in the story of adam and eve before "the fall". this picture is very attractive. it is one that, in my heart of hearts, is close to what i used to dream of when i thought of what waited for me beyond this life on earth. no worries. no thought of "evil". eternally, immediately and always tangibly in the presence of God, never worried with even the possibility of being separated from that Presence.
i love the idea of taking away "God's big stick". doing so would , in my opinion, impactfully and relevantly revolutionize the way we did "church". i might choose this as our next topic. we'll see.
i'll conclude my thoughts, though, on free will with this. i tend to agree that "free will", as it is marketed and practiced today, is severely perverted from how God might define it for us.
i'll let you close us out.
-------------------------------------------
Of course it would be nice to close with a definite answer. You and I could figuratively dust our hands and then high-five each other for figuring out one of life's mysteries :) Good job!
Who knows whether or not there will be eternal retribution. I think not, but that's just me. What I do find tantalizing is the idea that if we let go of the idea that there is ANYTHING of which God would disapprove of and thus disown us- well, if God's not judging us, then how could we judge each other? Instead of judging and condemning one another, maybe we'd simply observe and learn from one another- and when we see that someone has made a choice that leads to pain and suffering, then we could offer our help.
Maybe I'm just a Pollyanna :)
(part one)
CWG, book 1, p. 39:
"There are those who say that I have given you free will, yet these same people claim that if you do not obey Me, I will send you to hell. What kind of free will is that?"
It seems to me that the religious concept of God as unknowable is accurate. The "Ultimate Reality" or whatever we choose to call it, cannot be comprehended by the human mind. ALL religions say this somewhere in their scriptures. It follows then, that in our attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible, we project onto God characteristics that we as humans can understand.
We touched on this in Sunday school yesterday (sorry you weren't there Kev!). The idea of hell and eternal damnation, in my opinion, is and was created by humans. WE need to believe that "bad" people will be punished. It's hard to see people behaving in ways that we think are wrong or even evil, and yet they seem to continue on with their lives relatively unharmed. Where is the punishment, the retribution, the consequences? Life seems unfair. Thankfully, God will give them what they deserve in the afterlife! Whew! I feel better, don't you?
If this is your belief, that's fine- I'm pragmatic when it comes to religious beliefs and practices. After all, if it's working for you, what more can you ask? However, if you're really in the business of KNOWING God as much as He/She/It can be known, then we have to be a little more objective. That's where I have a problem with the conventional idea of free will- you know the one that says that we can do whatever we want, but if we don't do what God wants, then we're going to hell? Hmmm. Maybe we just need to forget what we want and try to figure out what God wants...
Here's my take: If there is a cost associated with a certain choice, then choice is no longer free.
I'm frustrated by the mental gymnastics that Christianity asks us to perform in order to accept this idea of free will. We must suspend all logic in order to accept the concept of free will that isn't actually free. I know, I know- you can't know God through logic, but must know God through faith. But putting faith in convoluted thinking which was created for the purpose of making us feel better about the obvious "unfairness" of life is stupid.
If there is no eternal retribution, of course, then how in the world can we control people's behavior? It IS a dilemma.
-----------------------------------------
on the whole, kathy, i agree with most of what you are saying. having grown up in the church, i always associated free will as being somewhat conditional. it wasn't 'til i got out and away from the church for a little bit that i was able to understand just how conditional it really was for those that chose to immerse themselves in the thinking that God would have us running through a maze for this portion of our existence.
obviously, there is a comfort to the conditions if you adhere to them, and i am sure we'll touch on some of the more specific conditions as we continue this conversation. as it relates to the subject of free will, though, let me look at it for a second through the lens of humc's current senior pastor. i love brother harris, and i don't know that i could convince myself that he had one disingenuous bone in his body. let me say that first and foremost. i believe with every ounce of my heart that he has my and the congregation of our church's best and eternal interests at heart when he delivers a message to us on sunday morning. having said that, i'll say this. many of his sermons center around a recurring theme. as our pastor, he warns us in so many words that free will is something to be tamed, not embraced. he has said many, many times that all he wants for his congregation to know is the information that is vital for us to pass through with him into the kingdom of heaven. and i love him for that. even though he is constantly reminding me of my mortality and the fears that have enveloped me since last july, i love that my senior pastor cares for me and my church family so much that he is doing everything he feels called to do to make sure we spend our eternal life enjoying the same heavenly reward.
as it pertains to this post's topic, though, it's the taming of our free will or the bending it towards one specific answer, one truth, that i have a hard time swallowing. if God, in fact, formed us truly in his image, it seems preposterous to me that he would allow our eternal separation to be so mechanical and unrelenting and un-grace-full to be risked on my perpetual questioning. did He not build me to question? does He not question, himself? wouldn't it make more sense that the free will that we all struggle with, when it comes to our desires and our vices and our loves and our interests be looked upon as a gift and not a curse? to me, it does.
to most, they would agree...to a point. to the point where they've drawn their conditional line in the sand. i've been raised to believe this. and i can't so far as to believe that. so, i'll end up settling here, because it's much too scary over there. i am guilty of drawing lines in the sand too. i am happy, though, that it seems, as i am getting older and obtaining a broader sense of who i think God really is, that my line continues to pull back to allow many others behind it rather than pushing forth and becoming more exclusive.
after all, free will is not just my gift. it's yours too.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If we want to get to the crux of the matter, which is what Walsch tries to do, then we have to ask the big question. Can you do anything, no matter how "bad," and still be reconciled with God in the end? I'm not talking about being sorry and asking for forgiveness, saying a gazillion Hail Mary's, and generally jumping through all the religious hoops, etc., that are required by most religions in order to get back on the good list. I'm talking about there being a predetermined outcome of reconciliation- a sense that, no matter what, you can't lose because Life isn't a test to be passed, but an experience to be savored. I'm talking about eternal reward/outcome here, not the natural consequences we face for our choices in this life (which we should definitely talk about), but ULTIMATE outcome. As I touched on earlier, this is a dangerous idea because it takes away God's big stick, which religions clumsily try to wield in order to control human behavior. Still- what would the world look like without the threat of eternal damnation? What do you think?
-------------------------------------------------------
well, if we are talking about "the world" as we experience it now, it sounds really scary to not have a check (whether that check is represented by religion, government, etc. doesn't really matter i guess) that might balance out the manifestation of "evil" in the world. that being said, the rhetorical you pose is one that we already have a metaphorical picture of in the story of adam and eve before "the fall". this picture is very attractive. it is one that, in my heart of hearts, is close to what i used to dream of when i thought of what waited for me beyond this life on earth. no worries. no thought of "evil". eternally, immediately and always tangibly in the presence of God, never worried with even the possibility of being separated from that Presence.
i love the idea of taking away "God's big stick". doing so would , in my opinion, impactfully and relevantly revolutionize the way we did "church". i might choose this as our next topic. we'll see.
i'll conclude my thoughts, though, on free will with this. i tend to agree that "free will", as it is marketed and practiced today, is severely perverted from how God might define it for us.
i'll let you close us out.
-------------------------------------------
Of course it would be nice to close with a definite answer. You and I could figuratively dust our hands and then high-five each other for figuring out one of life's mysteries :) Good job!
Who knows whether or not there will be eternal retribution. I think not, but that's just me. What I do find tantalizing is the idea that if we let go of the idea that there is ANYTHING of which God would disapprove of and thus disown us- well, if God's not judging us, then how could we judge each other? Instead of judging and condemning one another, maybe we'd simply observe and learn from one another- and when we see that someone has made a choice that leads to pain and suffering, then we could offer our help.
Maybe I'm just a Pollyanna :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)