New eyes for reading the Bible: God

English: Bible in candlelight. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is one of those ideas, like my brief taxonomy of spirituality and religion, that I had a good while ago and then didn't get the chance to compose or finish composing. It is almost certainly true some of it has been forgotten or altered since the original inspiration.

A few points to make. This is not about a complex theological argument--it is not about debating theology in any way. It isn't about academic or left-brained discursive analysis. Nor is it about trying to get people to accept, convert to, or practice any form of Christianity. If you are overly argumentative or hyper-sensitive about religion, please refer back to these points if you feel the urge to complain.

I am not endorsing this perspective personally as something that I deeply believe, it just seems like a better/more interesting way to read the Bible. If you don't care for it, that's fine. I have no interest in arguing anyone into using this perspective. I am not endorsing Christianity or the Bible, nor am I trying to ignore or paint over the rough parts of either. But I do think if you are going to read the Bible, it's best to do so in a way that is going to make more sense to a modern audience and that challenges your comfortable (or uncomfortable) pre-conceptions.

So, this is basically a substitution system. Kind of like a translation, but without me actually reproducing the texts of the Bible with all of these changes awkwardly inserted. If you want to try this out, you'll have to remember or print the list and do the conversion mentally while you are reading something from the Bible or something from the Christian liturgy.

Oh, and while I develop things, you can just read the first descriptive paragraph of each major section entry in the series to get the basic translation. But you get much more if you read the rest. We begin by looking at God as Creator, God as Prophetic Authority, and God as Karma. But if you only pick one, try this first one...



God as the Creator

Try reading this as "the source or potentiality from which all energy and matter arises", especially if we are discussing God as "the Lord" or as "the Father".  In other words, read it as something beyond human comprehension or direct detection but whose effects can be observed in the manifestation of what we call existence, reality, etc. In more poetic terms, this also can be: "the invisible light by which all things can be seen", "the utter silence by which all things can be heard", "the unfelt presence by which all things can detected", "the inconceivable consciousness by which awareness and though are possible", and so on.   

A challenging view of Jesus Christ

English: Icon of Jesus Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have written extensively giving what can be considered "challenging views" of Jesus of Nazareth and his association with the concept of the Christ, too much to point you to everything here. (If interested you can scan through the posts listed under the Christian Teachings heading of the selected archives.)

I do so not to proclaim my own personal views or to spur debates. I do so to support the resurrection of a more a more contemplative, poetic, inclusive, and compassionate Christianity which can more effectively work for peace and social justice and which can coexist in a mutually beneficial way with peoples of other religions and of none at all. The material is for Christians and non-Christians. I think this is a good thing to support.

The views of Jesus presented in this series of posts (which have been suggested or implied previously) will undoubtedly offend some Christians, which is why I refer to it as "a challenging view". If you don't want to be challenged, don't read it.

Such views include the idea that Jesus was not specially created by God to wear as a human suit, that when Jesus of Nazareth is referred to in exclusive terms this refers to a perception of non-dual unity with the universe personified as "the Christ" and represented early Jewish audiences of the Gospel in messianic terms, that we all have the potential to participate in being Christ every bit as much as  Jesus of Nazareth, that is participation doesn't require you to be formally recognized as a "Christian", that Jesus-as-Christ, Jesus the Christ, or the more familiar "Jesus Christ" represents our own innate potential for wholeness and fulfillment to act as a blessing to the world, and that an emphasis on worshiping Jesus as a savior can rapidly lead to idolatry and getting away from actually following the example of Jesus in a real and unique way. Just mimicking a 2000 year old culture or adhering to the letter of creeds and dogmas while ignoring their spirit isn't "the Way".

See what I mean about being controversial?

This particular series focuses on Christian holy days. As new additions are added they will linked below.

Is Buddha a better Jesus?

Image via Wikipedia

There are many complex psychological, cultural and historical forces at work influencing why a segment one society adopts the religious narratives and symbols of another: the new cultural form is appealing to those disenfranchised by or disillusioned with the traditional form, it fills a gap that societal changes have created, etc.

Any single explanation of the appeal of Buddhism in the West, then, would be as incomplete as any single explanation for the appeal of Christianity in the East. But that doesn't make adding something new to the list of reasons for such a shift isn't worthwhile.

Here is a candidate for the list of reasons why people in the West find Buddhism appealing: Buddha is a better Jesus.

That is to say, the Buddha offers many of the things people who grew up in or around Christianity like about Jesus but without many of things they don't want.

Or another way to put it is that people may have an image of the kinds of things Jesus represents, such as peace, non-violence, suffering for the welfare of others, conscious union with the deepest aspect of reality, which they find appealing or compelling, but which is connected to a larger Biblical narrative and associated imagery that the find offensive or that just doesn't ring true for them.

Here are a few examples:

The two-truths model applied to Jesus and the Cross

Image via Wikipedia

The two-truths model in Buddhism suggests that we must look at any spiritual reading and discern whether it is referring to an ahistorical, or timeless, truth which is only approached indirectly through mythic language and metaphor or whether it is referring to a more mundane truth about particular events as seen with ordinary eyes. The former is sometimes referred to as belonging to a deeper and more inclusive view of reality, while the latter is confined to a narrower empirical view reinforced by our general understanding of how things are supposed to be.

This does not mean that a religious view is always on the level of the mythical/mystical level of understanding or that secular views are always generic/mundane. Someone who takes miraculous language literally (it says Jesus turned water into wine and therefore actual water became actual wine) is rendering that teaching in an ordinary mode of perception, while someone who takes everyday language poetically (such as someone who feels a new sense of depth and interconnectedness upon hearing that we are all made of star dust) is rendering that teaching in an extraordinary mode of perception.

The more inclusive mode has been referred to by teachers such as Thich Nhat Hahn as the ultimate perspective and the more restrictive mode has been dubbed the relative perspective. The challenge for interpreting Biblical texts with this approach to determine which passages and images should be taken from the ultimate perspective and which from the relative.

Take the figure of Jesus and the symbolism of his Cross, for example.

God's nature as revealed by Jesus and the Biblical narrative

Image via Wikipedia

I was recently reading something at Wordgazer addressing the question, "Are those of us who follow a gentler version of Christianity really just deceiving ourselves about the real truth of what our religion is about?"

The author, Kristen, brings up her view of accommodation, that the Bible must be interpreted in a way that can be received and understood within a particular cultural and historical context. That is, rather than a straight reading, which can include misunderstanding based on our own ethnocentrism, the emphasis is one what was assumed and taken for granted in the particular setting in which a specific book of the Bible was written and was was new or exceptional in what was being said. This form of exegesis, for example, might recognize that sexist and violent imagery was common in a particular time and place and see its presence in a passage as uninformative. It would ask, "Yes, but what is different here?" And then it would try to take that difference and understand it's meaning for a contemporary audience.

Kristen then takes up a the position of the Bible as narrative, suggesting that the an unfolding theme or story can be seen in the various books of the Bible leading to a kind of progressive revelation. The teachings and example of Jesus are taken to be the culmination and final form of this revelation, even if it continues to be distorted to some degree by the views and beliefs of the Gospel writers and the authors of the various letters that make up the rest of the New Testament. This is supposed to free themes such as universal love, acceptance, peace, and nonviolence from Biblical passages suggesting indifference, division, division, strife, and violence. The overall effect is to try to translate as much of the social and personal context as possible to extract and purify some presumed key messages, perhaps how love and acceptance lead to forgiveness and reconciliation between people and between people and God.

But is it that simple?

Are flaws key to virtue?

Image by chris.chabot via FlickrWhat do you think of positive spirituality?

Many people like to hear that they are part of the divine, that they have Buddha-nature, etc. It's cool. It's uplifting. For people who have a poor self-esteem, seeing the beauty in your existence, however you describe that wonder of life, can make a remarkable difference.

So why am I going to drop the other shoe?

Because there is just as much value in what is sometimes referred to as negative spirituality. Looking at the shadows. The faults. The flaws.

If you meet Jesus on the road, kill him

Image by Greg_Smith via Flickr

Anything, including God, that we can choose or lose, is not true Being. It is an illusion. An idol. It's like the saying about finding the Buddha on the road. You have to kill him. Otherwise you were just grasping at another idea. God must die to find God. Jesus must die to find Jesus. The Buddha must die to find the Buddha. We must die to find ourselves.

We must even learn to move beyond the road. Clinging to Jesus or the Buddha or the church or sangha: these are useful as we get to our feet and learn to walk and to run. Good spiritual therapy. Cling to Lao-Tsu or Moses or another if you like. But eventually we have to use that new-found freedom and go beyond our therapy sessions. Doesn't mean we have to reject any of it, but rather stop holding to it as if it were the end rather than the means.

In the presence of Christ and beyond Christ: the contigent and the universal within Christianity

Image via Wikipedia

The following was initially written as a reply summarizing and clarifying how I would describe certain aspects of Christianity in relation to the transcendent and immanent, specifically how the historical aspects of the life of Jesus relate to themes that are found in spiritual insights around the world. I therefore write in broad terms, especially in terms of the history of the church. I oversimply and over-extend. But it does give a rough and raw overview.

The reality of the present moment is at the convergence of transcendent and immanent. It transcends concepts, observations, opinion, preferences, assumptions, and the like, but it does so because it is grounded in itself, the basis of all of that is immanent, or even "immanence itself" as some theologian might say. It is the here and now.

Not the idea of here and now, nor a mindless stupor, but a deep awareness. The ego assumes awareness, i.e. the presence of God, the peace of the Lord, etc, is cold and inhuman because it cannot conceive that there is anything other than itself, so if it isn't running the show, it presumes there will be some lifeless void. But the (Tibetan) Buddhists describe it as luminous. In the West it is called divine. The Japanese Buddhist and community organizer Jose Toda said it (the nature of the Buddha) was life itself. There is no need to "try to get" anywhere, and certainly not outside of history and context, as these are relative and take place within the absolute.

Instead, the idea is to not see history and context as fixed or as the total of reality, but as a passing reflection of a fraction of it's full depth. There can be no true "dynamic and changing process" if we live our lives in the psychological past or future. That is, we don't see what is but rather characters and feelings from the past, or we constantly worry about what we think will happen based on that same script. The script that says who we've been, who we are supposed to be now, and who we are supposed to be in the future. Throw away the script. Learn from the past, plan for the future, but transcend the script. The aspect of oneself that has a historical thread (our physical bodies, memories, ideas, etc) can be a vehicle for manifesting such depth, and isn't to be rejected, but when it becomes an end unto itself and tries to cling to something for a permanent sense of identity, that's when the trouble begins. There is then no winnowing away, there is the discovery of depth.

No outside force is going to save you

Image via Wikipedia

I was recently reading a book which had what many in the Christian world (as well as the Jewish and Muslim worlds) would consider to be some pretty offensive or blasphemous statements, about looking for protection in some kind of divine parental figure or waiting for some outside force to save you. Many I'm sure would see that as the antithesis of belief in God, especially in what has become in our age the common understanding of the Christian message. I can hear a reply:

"We pray to God every day to bless us and save us, this goes against God and the Gospel! You much be teaching the heresy that we can save ourselves, but the community and tradition (including the Bible) that arose from the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth tells us that our salvation is a matter of grace. You are a false prophet and a liar."

The problem here is one of idolatry. Yes, I wrote idolatry. In fact I did it twice. Third time is a charm: idolatry. If we look to the limited conceptualized view of the world, of this versus that, then we are dividing up a continuous whole into artificial fragments, assigning them names, and assigning them qualities and properties (good/bad, pretty/ugly, big/small, long/short). This is what the mind does, and it has its usefulness, but all such concepts are limited and to some degree distorted. Even philosophical and scientific models ignore, diminish, or emphasize some aspects of what is being studied in order to focus on a particular question.

The problems arise when we forget these conceptual models are just that, models, and that for all of their usefulness we mustn't mistake them for reality. But too often we do, including our conception of "me" or "myself", and this is where we run into the problem of believing we are our lesser self, the flesh, the ego. "I am my body and my memories and my experiences". Yet none of those things are stable or lasting, so if we are told we are not those things, we can slip into a kind of nihilism. The point isn't that we are nothing, but rather that what we are at the deepest level is neither defined nor confined by these other aspects, aspects of form (or again what some call flesh, but which is more than just the body as used here).  The idea that we are the awareness of these things, the ground consciousness in which they arise and exist, which the ancients referred to as "spirit", "the divine", or "God" seems nonsensical to many because it can only truly be experienced, not really described or imagined.

Some Wisdom From Anthony De Mello: Wake Up/Stay Awake

I keep meaning to get some of his books...

"Is there anything I can do to make myself enlightened?"

"As little as you can do to make the sun rise in the morning."

"Then of what use are the spiritual exercises you prescribe?"

"To make sure you are not asleep when the sun begins to rise."

~ From One Minute Wisdom

Spirituality means waking up. Most people, even though they don't know it, are asleep. They're born asleep, they live asleep, they marry in their sleep, they breed children in their sleep, they die in their sleep without ever waking up. They never understand the loveliness and the beauty of this thing that we call human existence. You know — all mystics — Catholic, Christian, non-Christian, no matter what their theology, no matter what their religion — are unanimous on one thing: that all is well, all is well. Though everything is a mess, all is well. Strange paradox, to be sure. But, tragically, most people never get to see that all is well because they are asleep. They are having a nightmare.

~ Quotation from Approaching God : How to Pray by Steve Brown

Hmm, what was it Jesus and Siddhartha kept saying again...?

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Prologue

This series of essays was inspired by an original single essay on the consequences of how one thinks about traditional religious language and imagery and some of the pitfalls that go along with it; it was a haphazard collection of thoughts that attempted to record an earlier and more orderly thought process. The series has been a way of fleshing out and exploring out the original essay and the original topics were: Who was Jesus? Was he was without sin?, Who was Jesus? Did he "die for me"?, Does Jesus save? Can we call on Jesus?, How do we connect to Jesus? What is the "good news" and who is it for?, Connecting the vision of the Gospel and salvation and debates about faith vs. works, The role of the church, and How to live, meeting God, and judgment. You can use this index to help you jump back and forth between the essays, but keep in mind that each builds on what was said before, starting with the original pilot essay. The basic idea is that they would form the basis for future essays which explore the picture began with these original installments.

 Before you read any of them, please bear in mind the context in which they are written and the purpose they were intended to serve. First, they were written by someone who came of age in churches which were largely what we would refer to today as heavily conservative evangelical fundamentalist churches which claimed no denominational affiliation. I ended up abandoning and eventually completely disbelieving all of Christianity. Having begun the process of rediscovering it, both through my own practice as well as through the writings of various priests, monks and theologians, I have been inspired and troubled. This is most evident in these essays. They are in one sense a way to expose and expunge much of the baggage still lurking below my regular thoughts, clinging to traditional words, phrases and images like leeches. Some of the fiery rhetoric used to burn it off may be offensive to some, although my intent is never to mock or ridicule Christianity. Far from it. It is a most genuine and sincere attempt to deeply and truly take Christianity seriously.

Going along with the first point, I do subscribe to (and discuss) the idea that religious language and imagery must be free to challenge and inspire, as a starting place for our spiritual development and maturity rather than a narrowly defined set of boundaries that limit such growth and are ends unto themselves. I also subscribe to  the idea that we should not look down on others for not having the same understanding or for not getting the exact same thing out of such material as we do (see the essay "Caveman Og and the problem of religious mystery"). As a  commentary I read a few years ago by a Buddhist master said you have to believe the Pure Land is a real place, then you can move to Pure Land as metaphor, then you can see that it is both and yet beyond both. To start with metaphor only is to not fully grasp the teaching. I can't cite where, though I think it was a tiny book by Thomas Merton on how to read the Bible, but I also recall an admonition that we should avoid deciding ahead of time how we will react to imagery, including that in sacred literature, and only find that narrow way acceptable. One day a passage may make sense in a more literal way, and on another it might not. But in either case to try to pin it down by saying there is only one preset meaning for everyone and every time misses the value of such imagery.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: The role of the church

This is part of a series of essays exploring ways to honor religious tradition while making its message accessible and relevant to people today. It isn't officially endorsed by any group, it is an attempt to spark people to move forward with their faith. It draws on another essay sketching the outlines of two visions of the Christian message.

Too often we see important elements and individuals in religion reduced to lists of rules and theological reflections. The overly familiar images and language becomes sterile, and they make the way we speak or think of God lazy: "Almighty God", "in the name of Jesus", "who with the Father and the Holy Spirit", etc. Many have an idea that they should use these things because they are Christian, but what if we took away those convenient, easy and familiar words and the handy reactionary assumptions of theology that they hide?

Because some overarching themes became so ingrained and taken for granted in major swaths of the Christian traditions, people just assume what terms like sin and holiness mean and never really bother to explore them beyond the impression the receive from the environment in which their beliefs were formed. But what if there is more to it? What if a failure to take into account the original context of an idea or to ask how it might have been expressed today isn't just lazy, it shows a disrespect for the idea itself. It also means many people will find the idea sounds outdated or irrelevant, no matter how much its proponents shout and stamp their feet.

Let's continue from where we left off  and examine how a mystical approach to the identity, life and passion of Jesus can inform us about the Gospel and the role of the Church.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Connecting the vision of the Gospel and salvation and debates about faith vs. works

This is part of a series of essays exploring ways to honor religious tradition while making its message accessible and relevant to people today. It isn't officially endorsed by any group, it is an attempt to spark people to move forward with their faith. It draws on another essay sketching the outlines of two visions of the Christian message.

Too often we see important elements and individuals in religion reduced to lists of rules and theological reflections. The overly familiar images and language becomes sterile, and they make the way we speak or think of God lazy: "Almighty God", "in the name of Jesus", "who with the Father and the Holy Spirit", etc. Many have an idea that they should use these things because they are Christian, but what if we took away those convenient, easy and familiar words and the handy reactionary assumptions of theology that they hide?

Because some overarching themes became so ingrained and taken for granted in major swaths of the Christian traditions, people just assume what terms like sin and holiness mean and never really bother to explore them beyond the impression the receive from the environment in which their beliefs were formed. But what if there is more to it? What if a failure to take into account the original context of an idea or to ask how it might have been expressed today isn't just lazy, it shows a disrespect for the idea itself. It also means many people will find the idea sounds outdated or irrelevant, no matter how much its proponents shout and stamp their feet.

Let's continue from where we left off  and examine how a mystical approach to the identity, life and passion of Jesus can inform us about the Gospel and the role of the Church.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: How do we connect to Jesus? What is the "good news" and who is it for?

This is part of a series of essays exploring ways to honor religious tradition while making its message accessible and relevant to people today. It isn't officially endorsed by any group, it is an attempt to spark people to move forward with their faith. It draws on another essay sketching the outlines of two visions of the Christian message.

Too often we see important elements and individuals in religion reduced to lists of rules and theological reflections. The overly familiar images and language becomes sterile, and they make the way we speak or think of God lazy: "Almighty God", "in the name of Jesus", "who with the Father and the Holy Spirit", etc. Many have an idea that they should use these things because they are Christian, but what if we took away those convenient, easy and familiar words and the handy reactionary assumptions of theology that they hide?

Because some overarching themes became so ingrained and taken for granted in major swaths of the Christian traditions, people just assume what terms like sin and holiness mean and never really bother to explore them beyond the impression the receive from the environment in which their beliefs were formed. But what if there is more to it? What if a failure to take into account the original context of an idea or to ask how it might have been expressed today isn't just lazy, it shows a disrespect for the idea itself. It also means many people will find the idea sounds outdated or irrelevant, no matter how much its proponents shout and stamp their feet.

Let's continue from where we left off  and examine how a mystical approach to the identity, life and passion of Jesus can inform us about connecting to Jesus and the meaning of the Gospel.

Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: Does Jesus save? Can we call on Jesus?

This is part of a series of essays exploring ways to honor religious tradition while making its message accessible and relevant to people today. It isn't officially endorsed by any group, it is an attempt to spark people to move forward with their faith. It draws on another essay sketching the outlines of two visions of the Christian message.

Too often we see important elements and individuals in religion reduced to lists of rules and theological reflections. The overly familiar images and language becomes sterile, and they make the way we speak or think of God lazy: "Almighty God", "in the name of Jesus", "who with the Father and the Holy Spirit", etc. Many have an idea that they should use these things because they are Christian, but what if we took away those convenient, easy and familiar words and the handy reactionary assumptions of theology that they hide?

Because some overarching themes became so ingrained and taken for granted in major swaths of the Christian traditions, people just assume what terms like sin and holiness mean and never really bother to explore them beyond the impression the receive from the environment in which their beliefs were formed. But what if there is more to it? What if a failure to take into account the original context of an idea or to ask how it might have been expressed today isn't just lazy, it shows a disrespect for the idea itself. It also means many people will find the idea sounds outdated or irrelevant, no matter how much its proponents shout and stamp their feet.

Let's continue from where we left off  taking a look at the significance of Jesus' death and how it relates to the notion of salvation.

We know Jesus, and the Buddha, and the rest too well

Or to put it more accurately, in many ways we don't really know them at all.

I have alluded before to something that many theologians have known for a long time, something I didn't come up with on my own, that in many ways Jesus was a radical.  That isn't to say he was a raving ideologue, or some kind of Jewish anarchist.  From the depictions we have of him he favored quiet, peace and rest as well as good times with friends and family.  He also appears to have been very observant, going to the temple, singing the Psalms, and reading from the Torah.  Yet he saw past clinging blindly to the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit, in which he revealed its source and intent: love for God and for neighbor.  No interpretation of religious law that defied this mandate could be genuine and no secular law that ignored it could be just.

Then there were the early churches.  I've heard they initially shunned the iconography of the cross.  It isn't surprising.  The cross in that era was a sign of shame, terror and agony.  It was the visible symbol of what happened to those who defied Rome and its Emperor.  To look at a cross was to look at the power of the largest known empire in the world and its dominion over your life.  To have taken up the cross as their own symbol, the members of the church would have been doing what so much of the Gospels did, inverting familiar signs of power and meaning.  It was an act of defiance.  What you proclaim as death we proclaim as life.  What you intended to cause despair has become a source of hope.  But how can that symbol carry the same impact today?

The tension between tradition and revelation

***Note: I thought I'd published this months ago and I've been going mad looking for it.  It may or may not appear to be congruent with the development of my thoughts,  but it was intended to be up around July 4, 2010.***

Following up on previous thoughts on the tension between received wisdom and unfolding revelation I examine that tension in the issue of salvation as it is framed by Christianity. Note that my thoughts on these matters, especially what it means to know or follow Jesus, will almost certainly offend or unhinge someone, so if you are really wound uptight on such issues, be forewarned.

There are some common/popular traditional ideas to be addressed, so let's look at each of them in turn:

A Prayer When I Feel Hated

           Image by See-ming Lee 李思明SML                via Flickr

Today's post features a prayer written for those who feel excluded or harassed or bullied, written in response to the highly publicized suicides of teens who were tormented for being gay or for being suspected of being gay.  Granted it is a Christian prayer, and many of my readers are not part of that faith tradition, but it's still worth sharing.  And if you have one from your own faith tradition that you think would be appropriate to this theme, send it my way and I'll put it up as well.

A Prayer When I Feel Hated by Father James Martin, S.J.

Loving God, you made me who I am.
I praise you and I love you,
for I am wonderfully made, in your own image.

Benediction for 10/2/10

Follow Jesus or worship Christ?

Some would immediately answer "neither". You may be one of them, but you might still be interested in this question because how others answer it may affect you anyway.

For others, this seems like a false choice. Why is it even a question? Why can't it be both? Again, this distinction may not apply to you but if you are someone who would choose "both", you may be especially interested in those who emphasize or only select one answer over the other.

But where does such a question come from anyway? And what do we do with it? What does it mean, for example, when someone labels herself or himself as a "follower of Jesus" as opposed to a "Christian"?