Epiphany

Epiphany is the time when the three wise men came and gave gifts to the Messiah. It is the origin of gift giving at the Christmas time. Some forms of Christianity still practice the giving of gifts on January 6th, instead of on Christmas day. It is an interesting story nestled in the second chapter of Matthew.
The Greek for the “wise men” is “magoi apo anatolon.” Literally it translates: magi from where the stars rise. The word “anatolon” which is often translated as “the east” is used repeatedly in reference to the rising of the star which the magi are following to find the Messiah. The Magi from the east saw the star in the east and followed it. The word anatolon has both the connotation of “rising” and “east.” Stars rise in the east and set in the west. Anatolon serves both as a geographical location and an action. The magi from the anatolon are searching for the Messiah by following the star’s anatolon. This is their realm of knowledge, expertise and location. They are successful in their venture and find the Messiah.

Are the Magi magicians, scientists of the day, crackpots, or representatives of other faiths? All of those scenarios have been presented in the literature at one time or another. Not much is known about whom these individuals are; who or what they represent exactly. The biblical account is silent. Christian tradition has assigned them names and places of honor. And the general designation of “wise men”, which may in light of the silence be the best designation, leaves much to the imagination. They were not questioned by the local authorities but rather accepted as valid emissaries on a mission. When they arrive at the side of the Messiah they are not questioned by the mother Mary but accepted.

What is the point of the story? This story only appears in the Gospel of Matthew. This gospel is largely concerned with proving that Jesus is the Messiah. The first chapter is devoted to two themes, first, to the lineage of Jesus back to the King David and the founder of Judaism ,Abraham; and second, to the miracle conception of the Messiah. The second chapter shows the secular rulers rejection of the “King of the Jews” but the acceptance of the “King of the Jews” by the “wise men.” The second chapter also shows an “exodus” event not unlike that of Israel in the time of their beginnings.
So what is the point of the story of the Magi?

Emerging or Post Christian

I have recently read Phyllis Tickle's "The Great Emergence," which of course brought a flood of thoughts into my head. First, let me talk about the book a little and then about the thoughts which is sparked.

The book is... well, light in some areas and thought-provoking in others. The book attempts to cover the last two thousand years in history, western history that is. Western history with an eye towards trends in religious thought and development. The book itself is an easy read, although her sentence structure and thought processes are a bit muddled at times. Towards the end of the book it begins to play out and the themes she creates earlier on in the book finally emerge. I am not sure if it is the best book on the subject but it is an adequate introduction. Because church history is my area of study, I felt it was lacking in some areas. I don't think she misrepresented church history, but she does not give a detailed account. OK, now to the subject of the book.

The book looks back at the last two thousand years of history and brings out a trend or cycle. Every 500 years, roughly speaking, there is an event that radically changes the face of the western world, and specifically the church. Of course we are coming up or in the midst of the next five hundred year mark and so the book attempts to flesh out current trends of the course of the next five hundred years. So here is a break down of the last four cycles:

1.0-500 Christ: the birth of Christianity which ushered in a new religion that over the next five hundred years became the dominant religion.

2. 500-1000 Holy Roman Church: with the fall of the Roman Empire and Rome itself, there was an economic, political and religious vacuum which the church was able to step in and take control of. With the birth of monasteries, western thought and culture was preserved and carried forward.

3. 1000-1500 The Great Schism: The eastern church and the western church split over theological and ideological themes. This is the when the west flourished in thought and development, especially as the crusades brought back knowledge from the east.

4. 1500- 2000: The Great Reformation: The church had become authoritarian and oppressive. Scholarship had moved beyond the church as a final authority. People, Martin Luther in particular, stood against the church, calling for reform. What happened was the creation of Protestantism and its thousands of denominations where the Bible became the final authority, not church dogma.

And now, 2000- present: What is being called The Great Emergence. What it is and who is involved, or what effects it will have over time is still unknown.

My thoughts:
This book fails to take into account the other forces that were at work in each of the epochs. Martin Luther was a success not because of his ideas alone, but because he had the backing of German princes who tired of the Church tithing them to death and the Holy Roman Empire taxing them to death. The advent of western science and shifts in technology combined with the emergence of a middle class which could rival the Nobility in wealth and power all called for a shift to occur. Martin Luther has just become the rally cry of the religious historians. But the history of that time period is much more complex.

The book does give credit to modern shifts in science, technology and world views. But when we stand so close in history to the events, it is hard to tell which events will be the hallmarks of the age and which will pass quietly into the past. Certainly tomorrow a greater event can occur that overshadows anything over the last hundred years. Or perhaps Christ will return and the whole question will be mute.

It appears that things happen every five hundred years to shake up the world and what settles out is different than what was before. That which shakes the world is hard to define. Science, technology and culture are all shifting. In the west, eastern ideas about religion, life, and death are forcing people to think differently. In the east, Christianity and western economic and political thought are forcing people to change their worldviews. And the realization that we are one people all inhabiting the same planet is having a major impact on the world. As the west moves towards post-Christian thoughts and practices, it is incorporating ideas from the east but also from science. And what is emerging is spreading that new gospel in new ways through technology. It is there in the blending that I think the next flower will blossom. I think this new epoch will emerge out of a blending of east/west, science/religion and the break down of dualism. Philosophy, theology and politics will all have to be rethought in light of new technology and new responsibility towards the whole. It is not us/them, or you/me... but rather we. This new thought will include the greater environment as part of the human being.

Another theme which is overlooked in the book is that each epoch is also ushered in with violence. That which was before does not want to change into that which is coming and so lashes out violently to stop the change. The usual response is to lash back with self defense and often violence, as well to bring in the radical change. History settles out and forgets the names and faces of the dead on both sides. Today war still rages. But how does that warfare fit into changing times and thoughts? And who is waging the war: the old stalwarts refusing to change, or the revolutionaries helping to emerge a new worldview? This is one of those moments when we stand too close in time to know what history will say in the future about today.

What will emerge will blend the threads of the current trends into a new fabric of reality that will greatly challenge and frustrate that which was. It cannot be just the continuation of what was, but must be an internal change with external consequences. And again, beccause we stand so close, it is hard to say what or who will force that change; but change is occurring.

Growing Strong

Growth has always been a viable metaphor for the spiritual life. If it is the growth of a plant from seed to tree or of a child moving towards adulthood, the idea of growth has always been applicable to the spiritual life. I have a nine year old daughter and a ten month old baby boy. Both of them are at completely different developmental stages, and yet someday they will both be adults. The spiritual life is much the same way. We may be just beginning the growth cycle of a spiritually maturing being or we may be well on our way. Either way the steps of development may be similar for all of us, just like childhood development is similar for all children. Here it is important to make a distinction. I say it is “similar” for all children; for everyone develops and matures along their own lines becoming a diverse group of adults. The spiritual life follows suit. We learn to pray, but our prayers will be different; we learn to serve, but choose different ways to be servants in life. There is a similarity to growth which creates a united community in shared commonalities, but our differences foster diverse communities.

The point I would like to move towards is that growth brings change and maturity which include new challenges. My nine year old knows how to walk, my ten month old will learn that skill in the next few months. My nine year old does not need to relearn that skill, she knows it and can move towards the next challenges of running or biking. Spiritually speaking, growth is similar. Once we learn a spiritual skill, we don’t have to keep going back and relearning it. It is time to put that skill to use, to develop it further and allow it to lead to other challenges where we need to grow. If you have mastered the discipline of prayer as intercession, then perhaps it is time to explore prayer as meditation or discernment. If you have mastered serving as an usher, perhaps it is time to challenge yourself to serve as a reader.

A good place to start is knowing where you are. Take some time to make an inventory of your spiritual skills. Ask the following questions: How am I using these skills for my community? How can I further these skills as I grow? What challenges in growth am I facing now?

Another exciting exercise is to create a spiritual autobiography where you can track your growth in the spirit. Make sure you list special moments such as baptism, confirmation, reaffirmation retreats or service projects, that have had an impact on your spiritual life. This autobiography can then be used as a tool to see trends, movements and growth in your own spiritual life. Perhaps it will open you to see ways in which you have been moving that you did not recognize before.

Faith and Doubting

There is a difference between doubting and pushing back against faith. Doubting is questioning the evidence and waiting for more proof before believing. Pushing against faith is when one knows what to believe and when to believe but refuses to do so. Doubting is healthy in creating strong mature faith that is built on solid reasoning and belief. Pushing against faith is creating the illusion of doubt to persist in holding back from belief even if it means the slow decay of the soul and spirit. Doubting leads to faith, pushing against faith leads to despair.

I have always been a skeptic, holding off from making a decision believing that tomorrow more evidence may present itself to persuade me one way or the other. Although that is a healthy way to approach a subject until one has a grasp of the main themes and is ready to proceed towards a conclusion, it is not a healthy way to live. Eventually one must decide. Not that one has to give up questioning or searching, but one must begin to narrow down the searching by choosing a course of action which by its nature begins to exclude other courses of actions. It is hard to live if one is not being committed. You can only half-ass life so long until it catches you. Calling it skepticism or even searching only holds so much water.

So when I bring these two tenets together I see in myself the fear to commit because of my proclivity toward skepticism which I call doubt but in reality is pushing against faith. I can no longer live that way but must commit to a course of living. And along this path I will find many more questions to search out the meaning towards. Having faith is not giving up thinking. Having faith is not blind belief. Having faith is accepting what you know in your heart to be true, even when your mind wants to ask that next question or is waiting for that next bit of evidence.

Human totality

I believe that humans are made up of three parts: the body, the psyche, and the spirit. Each part is essential to a fully functioning human. Each part must therefore be understood and developed. Often a culture or religion will highlight one of the three aspects to the detriment of the other two. Let us look briefly to see how a human is created from these three aspects.

The body is the physical aspect of the human, the flesh and blood. It is the vessel where the psyche and spirit meet. But it is not just an empty vessel. It is essential to the totality of the human. Bodies come in all shapes and sizes and in all modes of health. But there is also a baseline that must be achieved to be human. Once that baseline is met then healthiness can flow out of it. But for many it is a strive just to maintain the baseline and health is far away. Or once a little health is achieved, then it is an easy slide back down. The body is greatly affected by the psyche and the spirit. To achieve health in its truest form, harmony and balance must be sought.

The psyche is Greek for soul. But I have found the psyche is more than just the soul of the person it is also the mind of the person. We will see how this duality is created a little further on. The psyche is the emotional and mental state of the person. It is how one processes the outside world into inward feeling. But it is also the person's character, personality and will. If one is convinced mentally of a sickness or defect, then it is sure to materialize physically. The body will follow the psyche into sickness, but also into health. That is, if health is rightly understood.

The spirit is that part of the human that connects us with the divine, but not just a religious concept of God, but to the energy that is in everything and flows through everything. The spirit is what makes us part of nature. It is the connecting and entangling principles just now being discovered in the areas of quantum physics. It is a force that has limited understanding because science denies it, and religion confuses it with the soul and muddles the idea with theological limitations.

But now to put the pieces together. Think of the three aspects as three triangles, each slightly over lapping another to create a larger triangle. Where the body and the psyche meet you arrive at the mind. Where the psyche and the spirit meet you arrive at the soul. Where the spirit and the body meet you arrive at the quanta (or divine).

So it becomes obvious how all the parts fit to make the whole person. And health is the balance and harmony of the parts working together. Health is not just the absence of sickness, but it is the smooth running and flowing of the parts to create more than just the individual aspects. There are always hiccups and breakdowns, but to have the ability and wisdom to find where the "sickness" originated puts one in the place to restore the balance necessary for health. It is simple, but also very complex. It takes awareness of the self in all three aspects, but it also takes awareness of the awareness, stepping back a step to look at the totality of your being. That is the complexity. Diligence and discipline help us to enact the steps required to restore the proper balance. In essence, could this be quite simple?

Righteousness

In a comment from a previous post I was asked to start a new line dealing with the idea of right/wrong/moral, etc. So here is my attempt at it.

I grew up in a very conservative denomination of Christianity where spirituality is defined morally. If one wants to please God then one must act in a predefined moral way. Of course the outcome of such thinking is legalism (as a side note, legalism is death to spiritual maturity). Legalism is a strict moral code with God as the final authority. But as I began to explore my own faith and spirituality I found that morality is not based in legalism, but rather righteousness.

Righteousness is striving to act in the right way in the right time. There are no set and hard rules, for each situation will be different requiring a different right action. Which brings us to the point of this post: How do we know how to act? How do we determine the right action in the right time? I believe it comes down to character development.

I am not sure if we are all good or bad from birth. I think much of it is learned over time. I think it comes down to finding that balance between good for the individual and good for the community. Finding that balance is no easy task. As I reflect upon writing this post, my mind keeps moving towards specific, but I am trying to keep it abstract. So how do we teach character development and moral balance without falling into the legalism of endless does/don'ts lists?

I will end this post here and wait for a few comments to help find a direction for further posts on this subject.

For Good or for Pleasure

Why do you do the things that you do? Is it for the good or for the pleasure?

I was reading in the Upanishads the other morning and I read a passage about the difference between good and pleasure. It is often a hard distinction to make. But it is a very real and very profound one. Think about it for just a moment.


What is good? In one situation what is good may be different than in another. I don't think it can be defined in any hard and solid ways. It is a loose concept with few parameters. If it is self- seeking then most likely it is not the good. Seeking the good puts the self as the subject not the object. The good extends outward from the one doing the action to the furthest reaches possible. It is not contained in the action or the one committing the act. The good begins in one place but then moves outward in every expanding circle of influence. What is the good? I think it is up to each person to wrestle with that question in their own terms, life and situations.

What is the pleasure? Pleasure is that which feels good but with the self as the object and others as the subject acting towards or on the object. It tends to be, ultimately, self-seeking. Do for "me" that which I want, like, need. Pleasure is a misleading but very enticing way of life.

What would happen to the world if we started seeking the good instead of the pleasure? What would happen to our life, our community, our countries if we stepped outside of our desire to find pleasure, but rather put ourselves second and sought the good for others? How big of an impact could we have with just a little perspective change?

This is a difficult idea because the difference between the good and the pleasure is often not that big and it is easy to slip from one to the other. And to seek the good is often a personal choice. No one outside that person can address the idea of motive, they can only witness the results. My seeking the good may look very different than your seeking the good. I just have to trust in myself that the good will be carried out and not fall into judging, condemning and second guessing those near me. I think ultimately actions will be proven with results.

First Spiritual Principle

I posted a list of twelve spiritual principles. In this post, I will attempt to add to the first principle:

• The interconnectedness of all things.

Within Eastern philosophy, and Buddhism especially, this is a basic principle. In the west it is a principle that is becoming more accepted through scientific study. In the study of statistics there is a game that is played called the "six degrees of separation." It states that within six moves or associations any two people on the planet can be connected. I know you, who knows so and so, who is connected to what's-his-name, who works with yaya's sister and yaya is the aid to the President of China. The interconnectedness of people. But that is still not quite what this spiritual principle means. In the scientific community, within quantum mechanics in particular, there is a principle called entanglement. It states (oversimplified and therefore much room for error) that when two particles come in contact they can become entangled. And then however one is manipulated the other "entangled" particle shows the same manipulated results. (Take a photon split it into two parts. Polarize one part and the other part, regardless of distance from the one being manipulated, will also take on the same polarization.) Now this is moving closer to the spiritual principle at hand. Take into consideration that everything has come from one event. Therefore, at one time everything was entangled. New energy is not being created or destroyed only changing forms. This brings us to the second spiritual principle. We will return to this idea in another post.

So the first spiritual principle: everything is interconnected. This can be understood physically and yet the world, the cosmos, is so vast that we cannot hold the complete interconnectedness of all things in our head at one time. We cannot see how it is connected. We can only believe that it is. This principle can also be understood metaphysically. God, or the One, or the Power that Is, or Energy, or Fate is moving things into position creating a master plan which is being played out with or without our consent. If we are religious then we have our own views and beliefs about this line of reasoning and where we stand on it. But now the idea of belief comes into play. We each set a burden of proof to our beliefs. Sometimes blind belief is enough (there's no burden of proof, or an authority figure said it so I will believe it). Perhaps the examples above are enough (or they will lead you on your own search either through science: quantum mechanics; or religion and philosophy: Buddhism) and then your burden of proof will be met. Or you may remain skeptical and need further evidence, something that has not yet come to light.

I understand that at this point, things are greatly simplified. But I feel confident that as I move through each principle with deeper explanations clarity will be obtained. So have faith (in that which you believe you can) and keep reading. Please feel free to post questions and comments.

Spiritual Principles

A year or so ago, I wrote out a list of spiritual principles, or the beginning of my spiritual philosophy. At this point, there are twelve principles on my list. I tried to keep them simple, but you will notice that those further down the list tend to be longer. I think simplicity is a virtue, but there are times when explanations are needed. At this point, I will just list what I have developed and then flesh them out in later posts with more detail.

1. The interconnectedness of all things
2. Energy is the only reality
3. Energy flows
4. We can participate in the energy flow (We can participate in reality)
5. Through participation we come to see (know) the interconnectedness
6. We are limited in our control of energy, but it is possible to increase our control through knowing the interconnectedness, participating in reality and having faith in that which is (I.E. belief in the energy [God])
7. Participation is not just metaphysical or abstract. It is also moral and physical. Real participation connotes real action. This is Righteousness: the right act at the right time. Although what is "right" may not always be evident; action is always better then inaction. But don't act in haste. Act with the flow to promote the flow to bring balance.
8. Living in the flow is a way of life. It begins in the heart with belief, in the mind with understanding (knowing and accepting) and in the body with action.
9. Life is not divided or compartmentalized. Psyche(mind)/body/spirit is one. Don't overemphasis one area to the determent of another. All three make the conscious person.
10. Through meditation we strengthen our spirit. Through exercise we strengthen our body. Through study we strengthen our mind. Yet we should not compound the illusions but rather use meditation, exercise and study to find liberation from the preconceived, to come to know the interconnectedness of all and the power of energy in all.
11. Love is the way of the heart towards peace and harmony; that is balance. It may never be reached, but the way will lead towards the goal. To live love is to live balance. If all is interconnected then love must be extended towards all: people, animals, nature, cosmos...
12. By releasing that which we think we can control we can truly come to realize what is in our control and how to extend control further. It will be realized that use of force or anger is not control or power but rather the way towards confusion. Acceptance of the ego as secondary leads to release, which is freedom to gain the enlightenment needed to see the interconnectedness and move towards true control/power. This is the way of humility.

Professing and Belief

I was struck with a thought today. Why is it that at the university level, professors of religion don't necessarily have to believe what they teach? If a math professor, physics professor or a psychology professor stood up to profess the truth of their department and yet claimed not to hold to that truth, they would be quickly escorted off the campus. Yes, they may not hold to all of their department's teachings (you can't expect a Freudian to accept all the premises of a Jungian, or a classical physicist to use quantum mechanics) but they still hold to some part. They don't deny the general teachings, or approach it as a skeptic. But when it comes to the religion department it seems to sway the other way. The secular professor stands apart from the sacred to pierce, to prod, to critique and is hailed a hero. The general premise being that to believe, ruins the ability to approach the subject objectively... therefore nonbelievers are the only legitimate religious scholars.

Isn't that all just hogwash? Shouldn't all that be required for the professor is to be honest and upfront with his or her beliefs, presuppositions and underlying premises? (I would hope that said professor would understand how such things may affect their approach to other ideas, thoughts and religions besides their own, and strive for an objective position on those points for the benefit of the students).

I guess there is a difference between teaching ABOUT a subject and teaching THE subject.